Install Ubuntu and see if you can get your games and video editing software to work. If you can’t, go for CachyOS.

Why Ubuntu first? Because millions of people have been using it for years. When something breaks, you’ll be able to fix it because someone else would have already encountered this issue before and reported it.

They’re talking about dual-booting Windows and Linux. Dual-booting two Linuxes (Lini?) should be fine.

it seems the intent is for the peer review to happen there

That’s not how this works! That’s not how any of this works! You submit to some journal, who sends your work to 2-3 other scientists in the field (often anonymously, to reduce bias). There are cases of scientists ignoring journals and just posting their results to repositaries like arXiv, but that’s the exception rather than the rule. Anyway, GitHub is not an acceptable place to publish your findings, since it allows you to make changes later on.

the harm in forcing people to publish before they are ready by stealing their work.

That, again, is an issue that existed long before LLMs.

No, they published them on GitHub. Meaning they aren’t peer-reviewed. In the current scientific system, peer review is almost always necessary for your work to be taken seriously. If the original authors can get their work published first, they still get precedence. Plus, there have been a number of cases where X discovers and publishes something, Y rediscovers and publishes it a few years later, and Y gets the credit for whatever reason (usually racism or money).

The scientists were naive to hand over their ideas to a shady closed-source model. I don’t think what OpenAI did is acceptable, but it is something that already happens without any LLM involvement, so I’m just not as shocked as you are.

From what I understood from that article, OpenAI scooped the work of a couple of mathematicians (one an OpenAI employee, and both using OpenAI’s tools) and claimed it as their own. Stealing others’ work is not commonplace in science, but it does happen. The lesson here is to not trust OpenAI / Anthropic with your data or ideas, and to use local AI or at least less shady services. Also, the mathematicians will still get credit if they publish the findings first in a scientific journal, arXiv or conference - blogs and press releases sadly don’t count in academia.

one of the models was being portrayed as finding a mathematical proof which was actually in it’s training data. The original authors will not get the credit, academic support, exposure and funding they would have gotten otherwise.

If the original authors have published their findings somewhere (journal / conference / arXiv), they will definitely get the credit from other mathematicians.

it’s epistemology and source are an important part of it.

I don’t know about all AIs, but deepseek does cite sources. You can always cross-check them.

I said basically.

Ah, so there are alternatives.

Wanna bet? I close my eyes, sleep, wake up sometime (hopefully) then check.

If you can sleep as long as Rip van Winkle, you might see it change.

(Obviously the error margins are huge, but I expect capitalism to stop being the majority economic system in the world in about thirty years. Emphasis on the ‘about’.)

anarcho-communistic commune

Okay, so mentally children. Expect nothing significant from them.

Both? Some people don’t want data harvesting yet it’s done. The CEO gets capital, so do investment companies and maybe some client companies.

I don’t think data harvesting per se is going away. Even in an ideal world, the state would need to collect a lot of data about people to efficiently allocate resources (i.e. budget correctly). As for corporations, the CEO getting capital, and so on, those are results of capitalism.

You make the world a better place with the tools you have in this world. If you wait for perfect tools, you will get nowhere.

In the case of AI, your choices are over whether and which models you use. Your choice has zero impact on what others do with it. Let us take OP’s case. Their choices are (1) run an AI for some time to make an older phone model usable for some more years, and (2) don’t, and have a bunch of people buy newer phones. In this case, option 1 is clearly the better choice, in terms of energy and water use, economics, etc.

The philosophers only interpret the world in diverse ways. The point, however, is to change it make old phones usable.

basically everything is de-facto capitalism

I wouldn’t go that far. The majority mode of production of the world today is capitalism. But that doesn’t mean ‘everything’ is capitalism. Neither does it mean that the majority mode of production of the world will be capitalism tomorrow.

The same applies to energy production from fossil fuels. In fact, there the transition (to renewables) is far more visible.

If you use this in Christiania, you step out to Denmark

Did you miss a connecting statement? What is Christiania?

can only be trained by data harvesting corporations

What is the problem here? The data-harvesting part or the corporations part?

They have given five reasons for not using AI:-

• water and energy use
• worker exploitatio
• worker layoffs
• use of other’s work without consent
• not understanding what the code is actually doing

Of these, the first is a result of using fossil fuels, the second and third are a result of capitalism, and the fourth is only a problem if you believe in the whole ‘intellectual property’ charade. Only the fifth is an actual issue with AI, and that can be solved by either mandating human review, or marking AI-generated code as such and letting users use or exclude it.

AI will always be tied to concentrated capital due to the cost of training state of the art models.

So will CPUs, trains and new medicines. Some sectors simply need a huge amount of capital.

It’s unlikely that the market will open up any time soon so that you can get your LLM from someone who isn’t a fascist billionaire tech bro.

But this I think is not just likely, but inevitable. As long as at least one company puts out open-source AI models, users will have the option of switching to it. So even if they don’t switch, they can use this leverage to keep AI access sellers in check. Eventually, the whole market of selling access to AI will collapse, and the only AI trainers will be people who want to give it out for free (governments, universities) or companies who use it as a loss leader to sell an actual product.

Lenovo Thinkpad. New ones are quite expensive. But they tend to last a decade and many companies sell off old ones, so you might get a used one for cheap. Don’t get the E or L series, though; those are cheaply made. T, X, etc. are good.

OP’s phone runs MiUI, so it would be easy to unlock. You register a Mi account with an active SIM and either wait 3-7 days as asked, or use one of those scripts that intercepts the unlock request and gives you the key.

Newer Xiaomi devices run HyperOS, which is much harder to unlock and there are no exploits as far as I know.

If you are gay enough and familiar with Russian / Siberian culture you might get a job at miHoYo.

I think a police truck lost control and ran over a dozen or so protestors somewhere in Beijing, killing many of them. Of course, this has since been exaggerated to an absurd degree.

Only India as far as I know.

There are ways, but they are costly and complicated and do not stop all attacks. So the golden rule is that if critical infrastructure doesn’t need to connect to the internet, it shouldn’t.

I guess we’re the world leaders in Linux use - Windows 78.4%, Linux 14.7%, MacOS 3.5%. US sanctions on Russia and people here not being able to afford Win11 compatible machines must have helped.

One probable outcome of an open-weight-model-dominant world is full AI communism, which is precisely what China proposes: rather than a market product, AI is a ‘public good’ which will ultimately be provided by the state as a kind of ‘digital public infrastructure’.

I’m sold.

If everyone uses AI systems that people largely don’t pay for, there would be no way to finance continued frontier AI development.

There would be no way for private companies to finance AI development. (Also has he heard of a loss leader?) Universities and governments will do it instead.

Congress restricted the use of Chinese model DeepSeek on federal and defense networks because of security and privacy concerns last year

Buy a server and run it locally?