Sadly, the browser variants lack functionality. In my experience, particularly powerpoint, a colleague says the same of excel.

Thankfully, I rarely need that functionality so I only have to resort to Windows once every few months.

Between libre and office in the browser, 99% of my needs are met.

Collaborating on a powerpoint however, it’s very quickly ‘powerpoint application only’, whether I like it or not.

My company issued me a computer with Windows just fine. Except for Office 365, everything else I do is much better to have Linux native on it. So they are perfectly content to help me run Windows, I still don’t want to run windows.

I was expecting you to say just use it in a browser, which actually I do 99.5% of the time. However, just last week I had to boot into Windows because of being forced to work a powerpoint presentation in ways the online powerpoint simply won’t touch. Similarly, I’ve heard people speak the same of Excel, but I haven’t experienced that one personally.

Incidentally, booting into that Windows install, the updates took about 6 hours before it was happy. Between Microsoft and my work’s endpoint management, it’s a nightmare to try to maintain the work Windows load. I had a similarly neglected Linux laptop and it took about 30 minutes to chew through an even larger window of updates.

Just saying that if I thought it could work, I might be inclined to use ASI as a bogeyman to induce people to actually do something to reign in this mess, even if I didn’t believe it. Not saying that Bernie consciously employs this strategy, but it’s a possibility.

Fair point about such a strategy potentially backfiring if it doesn’t work fully, then the risk of ‘the other guy’ becomes a risk of making everything even worse.

Note that even if the ASI problem isn’t realistically a threat, either way the AI companies are absolutely a serious problem, not merely potentially. For most folks, half their retirement is at this point at the whims of a handful of AI tech bros. Putting aside all arguments about ASI, that alone is something worthy of putting some control over them.

I can’t say whether he has bought in or not, but this could be useful toward the end of curtailing some of the most damaging economic ambitions, so long as it is applied across the board without “trusted established players” somehow being given a pass.

So it could him buying it at face value, and frankly who can blame him. Trying to discern reality from hype is tricky in this scenario, especially for a politician.

However whether the scenario is substantitve or simply everyone is spending and building and planning as if it were substantive, his reaction is equally useful, as slowing our roll is important in either case.

His style of ‘buy-in’ wouldn’t be as risky as the more pro-AI buy-in, like Trump.

It’s still consistent with my experience, but in certain contexts, can be corrected if the output can be processed in some context that can auto detect wrong output. For example if you have a unit test to pass, then it can be wrong several times but doesn’t matter because it auto runs and gets directed to try again.

In contexts without the possibility to objectively measure correctness, it is still pretty bad.

You could just upgrade, I assume RAM is cheap, haven’t looked in a while, just let me look up memory prices real quick…

He is a scam artist, but this specific argument in the broader reality doesn’t really stick. The argument is that no one ever sells something that yields value to anyone else, which is obviously off.

It works better if you highlight that Tesla is less like those companies. They are demonstrably big on vertical integration, including the ride shares, so for them, it is out of character, but as a generic business strategy, it’s perfectly routine.

Broadly, you have a point. However with Tesla Musk has been pretty consistent that they would be directly doing it and they have the Tesla app managing the rides.

Their strategy has been all in one, they make the cars, they own the chargers, and they don’t really partner with anyone in any significant way.

While it does happen that companies end up partnering and competing at the same time, it’s relatively less likely. So for Tesla it is extra strange to be pitching being a supplier for other autonomous taxis while simultaneously being in the market.

So yeah, generally it is a poor argument, but in the context of Tesla, it is at least a bit out of character for them.

Of course in that scenario it may be private information, but given you are trying to file it, inherently you at least are in the realm of sharing it.

I would imagine things like asking for legal advice on a crime committed, which could hilariously backfire when that chat transcript shows up in court.

That’s the neat part, they generally do pay for “their” electricity, but there isn’t enough electricity for them to do that so power plants and infrastructure expansion must happen and they pretend that’s for everyone, not just them, so they shouldn’t pay for the capacity since technically they can’t tell whose electricity is really whose.

It’s a pretty broken model in this scenario.

His story was a bit less flattering. The narrative the advocates want is that Torvalds is all in on vibe coding the kernel.

The actual story is that he found it somewhat useful, even as it gave him wrong information and directed him to get help from a developer. A useful, but limited augmentation.

If Torvald’s account were the accepted reality, they wouldn’t be steamrolling rural locals to make so many datacenters and wouldn’t be demanding we need more natural gas power, and wouldn’t represent the majority of our economy. They would have utility and be available, but not so obnoxious. Well, maybe, they might not have bothered with so much expense in training for this level of capability, but the cost is sunk now.

Of course most development isn’t Torvald’s level, it is human slop. So there’s more to things than the actually complicated work that AI is limited for.

But it’s not only critics that oversimplify. Advocates are obnoxiously bad at declaring everything is all good with AI

Ironically, Microsoft platform as of yet still is pretty much a given that Linux may also run, with the exception of some of the Surface systems, but the ones no one wanted anyway. Apart from SecureBoot, Microsoft is picky enough about firmware specifications that are open, Linux can more easily be customized than random embedded things. Some things were rough, like ACPI implementations that didn’t comply strictly with the spec but microsoft happened to tolerate it, but fundamentally the Microsoft approach of outsourced everything makes for better chance for third party OSes.

Motorola has been under Lenovo for over a decade now, and still is, as a clarification.

The new thing is that for whatever reason, Motorola themselves has explicitly declared that some as-yet specified 2027 flagship model will officially support Graphene (though you have to load it yourself). This goes beyond just letting the community figure it out if it happens to be workable.

Now as to whether they follow through on that, hard to say. Lenovo broadly sometimes makes announcements and then backs out without explanation.

They are compatible with some existing and future phones. Google’s in-house processor decided to skip on an extension that the broader ARM ecosystem seems to continue to value. Graphene didn’t invent this extension. I presume that their compatibility with upcoming motorola devices indicates other mobile device processor designs implement the extension just fine.

Actually, Motorola has more market share than Pixel.

Though Google mainly cares about the software ecosystem, so they explicitly don’t care about Graphene since it’s not an outcome they want in the industry anyway.

Note that Debian has had a purist approach to intellectual property, and the common sense practical view that ‘obviously’ it has to be ok or else the entire industry would be hopelessly screwed by now, I could see them trying to stick to their guns.

There are still court cases flying about and so far the focus has been by rights holders versus the AI platforms. Those have thus far been pretty favorable for the platform holders, but there’s a catch.

The platform defense has been that “sure, we trained on copyrighted works and sure, the model can produce copyright violations, but when a violation happens, it is the fault of the operator and they should be on the hook for violations”. So it remains possible that someone comes after an AI user for making a knockoff, and given the context, the AI user might be making a violation without even knowing they are.

So accepting a contribution under GPL might get them in hot water because some company decides that the submission looks too much like their proprietary code, and they can draw a line from their codebase being open to AI ingest to it landing in a codebase.

Sadly, this is a bigger risk for open source than closed source, as the closed source is harder to detect such things.

Not him, but I almost never boot windows, but the other day I had to change a part of a a stupid powerpoint presentation that only could be done using Powerpoint desktop app. Wine has not done so well with it, Libreoffice wouldn’t do the thing right, and browser based office can’t touch ‘master slide’ content.

While true, this same infrastructure is used by corporations that either feel they need the privacy of on premise model, or decided paying by the token is too expensive/unpredictable.

NVidia would love every business to decide they need to have dedicated private gpu heavy infrastructure.