I would like to live in a world that does not inspire outrage

Yeah, a lot of maintainability is about understanding how it works. Architectural decisions are the other half. Someone who’s paying attention can do well on both of these even using AI tools.

What appa do you still need?

People who want linux usage to spread need to decide if they want widespread adoption (this comes with users who cannot troubleshoot and fix their own problems) or experts only (these people are already using linux)

he’ll associate this with Linux being janky again 🙄

This falls under that category. He installed a linux distro, the distro is janky.

Wish you luck!

Are you using pulseaudio? Could be module suspend on idle (link is blocked for me, might work for you): https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/PulseAudio/Documentation/User/Modules/#module-suspend-on-idle

That kind of depends how you define autonomy. Whichever way, I’m not sure I get how “virtual” is a better descriptor for implying a lack of it than “artificial” is.

Also by “we don’t actually know how it works” do you mean that we can’t explain why a particular “decision” was made by an AI, or do you mean that we don’t know how AI works in general? If it’s the first that’s generally true, if it’s the second I disagree (we know a lot, but still have a lot to learn).

I don’t understand the desire to argue against the terms being used here when it fits both the common and academic usages of “AI”

Are you? Because now we’ve agreed on every fact to determine my conclusion is correct. Yes they do want people using their product; they want to lure in customers. Wasting tokens generating unhelpful output would both drive customers away with a worse experience, and cost them more money. So there’s no reason for them to do that. Like I said in my first post.

Creating additional tokens LOSES them money. For a single token, the cost of generating it exceeds the profits.

I genuinely don’t understand what would drive someone to be this condescending when you don’t even understand the argument I have clearly laid out four times now.

Because they currently lose money for every token sold. They’re operating at a loss to generate a userbase so that they can monetize later. They’re currently in the pre-enshittification (I still don’t like that word) phase where they want to offer a good product at a loss and lure in customers, not phase 2 where they monetize their userbase.

I don’t think this really addresses my second point.

Hmm, interesting theory. However:

1. We know this is an issue with language models, it happens all the time with weaker ones - so there is an alternative explanation.

2. LLMs are running at a loss right now, the company would lose more money than they gain from you - so there is no motive.

Why would it be by design? What does that even mean in this context?

The rare double ambiguity: “work on” and “work with” could both have two meanings with opposite effects in the sentence

Well, I suppose it protects your session

Two VSCode sessions are NOT the problem if your system with 32GB of ram is stalling lmao

If I had the necessary insight into these fields to make fixing inefficiencies my job I would

I wonder at what point it would be easier to make a compiler to convert variable names into those numbers