That the statistical model for word prediction is far more complicated that the autocorrect in my text editor does not in any way a refutation of what I said. The more complicated algorithm IS the steroids part of "autocomplete on steroids".

You are doing a fine job of stressing the profoundness of the difference. But it is a difference that is immaterial to the point I was making. The algorithm underlying an LLM is not intelligent, despite being able to create a convincing simulacrum of intelligence.

Intelligence has to do with being able to learn and understand new topics and situations. No LLM can do that. When you hold a conversation with an LLM, the API sends all your previous correspondence (your prompts + its own responses) as a prelude to your next prompt. It is a clever hack (by the LLM designers) to create the impression of having a conversation where one is not actually occurring.

The problem there is you believe what the AI tells you about its own reasoning. It doesn't "reason" when it answers your query. It predicts the next word, until it is done, based on information in the training set. When you as it "Why did you give me that answer" it does the exact same thing again. Predicts the next word that would appear if you asked a person to explain that answer, until it is done, based on information in its training set.

One of the AI devs over at Kagi posted something recently, that AI is not a liar, but a bullshitter. A liar knows the truth and wants to deceive you. A bullshiter does not know, or care, what the truth is, it just wants to convince you. LLM have been engineered to use convincing tone becuase that gets you to use it again.

There is no reasoning, only bullshit.

Precisely. LLM systems are, ultimately, auto complete on steroids. That they can present a reasonable simulacrum of intelligence, does not change the fact that there is nothing else intelligence involved. No reasoning, no knowledge. Just probability based word assemblies.

that is why we are not sufficiently impressed for this douche. We see the limitations, and the harms that come from ignoring the limitations, and end up underwhelmed. They are promising something they are not actually delivering.

Many, many PC games can be played with a controller connected to the PC's USB port. Support for HID protocol and XInput protocol is widespread.

Gaming exclusively on modern consoles on grounds that games for Linux or Windows are presumed malware means you'll probably get indie games years late or never. This is because it takes time for an indie developer to build enough of a reputation in the industry to become eligible to buy a devkit for a modern console.

Unless by consoles, you mean things like the NES and Genesis, which are still getting brand-new indie games decades after Nintendo and Sega stopped supporting them.

That's not the question.

The question is whether the AI-produced code is a derivative of existing code, and the answer is still not resolved.

In some cases, the answer is a clear YES, because the code is a direct copy of something written by someone else. If something like that ends up in the kernel, it will have to be removed when someone notices.

That is a good approach, but Walmart success shows that it's not the only approach. It is also possible to make a load of money by selling everything. (See also: Procter and Gamble).

Steve Jobs chose the right solution for Apple. It's not the right solution for every company, or all the time.

How does Elon make money on the swings?

Say your reactor has a neutron injector on a rotor. The fission fuel has started vibrating, creating a feedback loop that could cause the reaction to become unstable. Running the rotor in reverse would change the pattern of incident neutrons just enough to stop the vibration. And the way you make a rotor go the other way is by reversing the polarity of its drive current.

That's the best that I could ground this technobabble off the top of my head.

The "cold war" phrase has been hitting the think tank and media circuits. here is another example

I'm ok with it as long as I don't have to bail it out if it fails.

It's like the hover tank in Sargent Bilko. Not about being practical, just about if you can get the contract. Human nature is the same everywhere.

They could do it like Sling, which has two basic tiers: Orange and Blue. Blue has the limited basic channels and a bunch of channels from programming providers other than Disney. Orange has limited basic and Disney, fewer channels and fewer simultaneous streams than Blue, with an "Orange & Blue" add-on tier that adds the missing channels from Blue.

Plausible subjects include either "The government's competition regulator" or "A coalition of multichannel video distributors". Which was it?

Tariffs are a bad thing from a pure economic perspective. They introduce inefficiencies, and make things more expensive. This is a basic concept of macroeconomics.

However, some things are more important than making the most money. Among them, national defense. In America, both parties have decided they don't want to work with China anymore, for varying reasons of ideology, ethics, and self defense. And they have decided that is more important to them than economic efficiencies.