Yes, because your original comment was so thought out and well reasoned to begin with 🙄

Let us know how your Linux 2.0 goes.

Hyperbole is hyperbole. I refuse to fall for bullshit just because it’s aligned with my views and opinions.

Looking at the actual numbers (less than 1%) other commentors are posting as opposed to clickbait headlines, I’m not seeing the issue.

Charging at home vs public charger, driving speeds, hilly terrain, etc.

I know, but that’s pretty much how anybody on mobile will see it.

It’s pretty dramatic…

The joy of ninja edits, huh?

Yes, Rimu is the main developer of piefed. While the project originally started with very noble stated goals, Rimu is turning out to have some very strong opinions and uses his control of the software and his adminship of the main piefed instance to impose those opinions on everybody. Very often so far, his actions and his stated reasons do not line up. In a way, it’s even worse than lemmy where at least the software is free of the ideological beliefs of the devs.

If you’re on piefed.social, there’s a lot of content being censored you might not even be aware of. About half of that is said controversy about piefed.

Where can I sign up for AI-PAL?

Your comment isn’t showing as deleted for me, there’s probably a federation error somewhere.

Great, Linux is an algorithm.

It might be accurate, but it’s also vague enough that it’s a pretty useless definition.

Doesn’t matter what the goal is, the context of this particular discussion is that AI is benefiting at least some people by making their lives easier. And one guy who’s trying to argue ‘so what, it only matters if productivity goes up’.

However they like, are you their mum?

… What.

AI has automated some mundane task that wasn’t particularly important, and now they can spend their time doing something more interesting.

That absolutely sounds like a win to me. Why is productivity gains the only thing that’s important? QoL is what matters. Unless you’re a capitalist overlord.

Not quite. Algorithms are definite, you get the same guaranteed output if you give the same input every time. AI is generally more fuzzy logic.

You’re getting direct examples of people its helped, and you keep brushing it off and asking what about everybody else. You’re obviously not going to get a single answer that affects everybody, and why do small successes not matter?

His analogy about turning off AI is bloody weird. Pick almost any technology from history. Chances are if you had turned it off a few short years after it was first introduced, it wouldn’t have had any major impact. Why would AI be any different?

You realise that it is a statistical impossibility that there were absolutely no mistakes?