Agile software development is the _solution_ to the problem of clients not knowing what they want and developing a piece of software that isn't military, medical, space, aeronautic, nuclear, mission-critical embedded or some other hardcore stuff.
That is wrong.
The area has nothing to do with it.

Agile actually means what the word implied to mean: being agile to change direction, up to canceling the project if it is clear we are going nowhere. Fail fast, fail early, instead of burning a lot of money and time.

Has absolutely nothing to do about the segment of the software development.

And web development - seems to be an anathema for "real developers" - certainly does not really require any "agile" mind set. Because it is rather simple and there are no challenges that imply that you have to adapt "agile" to.

P2P does not reduce the data.

If 10 people need 100MB each, it is 1GB in total.

Does not matter if the original server only sends 10% to each of them and they share them amoung each other.

Everyone of them is downloading 100MB ... just not from the original server.

Well, it is not possible to verify that you are correct.
As this: They are fully orthogonal.
That is simply wrong.
And this: I am an agnostic atheist. 100% agnostic, and 100% atheist. is simply impossible.

As Atheist you are convinced/know there are no gods. As Agnostics, you try to stay on the save side, and consider: there might be gods, but you do not care about them.

It is not possible to be convinced something does not exist and in the same breath say, well there might be something.

If 1% of what you write about yourself is right: you are an Agnostics, and not an Atheist at all.

Are you answering to the wrong person?

I did not claim any such things.

I pointed out that the roman salute and the nazi salute are the same, except for the words.

Ave Maria is not translated as Heil Maria, in German. No idea what you want to say.

In that document, he designed the system that would result in mass oppression and murder
I am not aware that he designed such a system.
Perhaps you want to cite a few lines from him?

"One that sought to have people living like ants in dormitories attached to factories." That is Frank Herbert, not Karls Marx.

I did not talk about computer programs being consciousness.
I pointed out that LLMs are _artificial_ non deterministic.
In other words: ask 2 times the same thing, you get different answers, if the question is complex enough.
Or if it is asked by two different people.

That tracking makes sense, but it is not stored in the LLM you are interacting with, but kept separate to train the next generation.

If you want to nitpick, then it is the successor of the regime that was put into power by the US ...
Which is not really relevant, or is it?

As a memory researcher, I understand that belief in photographic memory is common and the idea is compelling. But it is simply wrong.
Must be an idiot then.

How can one call himself researcher about something when his stand point can simply be invalidated by counter examples. And those are plenty in history.

I have a friend with an eidetic memory. You ask him about a book and a page, he can recite it - including spelling errors - from the first word to the last word. The only thing in question which we can not challenge or disprove, is: the date when he read the book, or read that particular page.

And people with similar eidetic memory are not particularly rare.

If you have two choices with the same probability, you have to pick one.
And that makes it indeterministic.

You do not have a single random number generator that got seeded ...

You have dozens, and they get triggered from random jobs.

You do not know from where your current LLM gets its next random number from for deciding if it takes 33% A or 33% B path.

The data gathered from people who visit my profile wouldn't exist without my profile.
But it is not your data.
You did not provide the web site with a asset of people who visited your profile.
The web site figured it itself, hence it is their data.

About what do you want to nitpick?

You plant an apple tree 1 yard away from the fence.

After some years it gets fruits ... the apples hanging over to the other side, and particularly the ones falling down there: are the property of the the owner of the land the apples are hanging or falling down on.

If you do not want to give a chance to someone to gather data that is related to you, but not YOUR data: then leave the platform.

What is next? You demand to know who was on the same air plane you took at date X from place Y to Z? Because of .... the airline has the data? They only could gather it because YOU were on that plane?

That is a farking stupid example.
You seed a random number generator.
Obviously all with the same seed will produce the same sequence.

What the fark has that to do with an LLM/AI model?

WTF how stupid are people.

Such laws do often give the you the right to know who the data collector is sharing your data with.
They are not allowed to share any data with anyone. That is the default.

The general principle of such laws is to know what information is being collected about you, the problem/case (of the guy called Nyob) is not collecting data about me. It is collecting data about the others. The guys visiting my profile.

how it is being used and who it is being shared with. it can not be shared legally with anyone.
Are you a retard?

GRDP is just the modern extent of data protection laws: it was NEVER LEGAL to share any data of your clients with anyone. Edge cases require consent. E.g. you want automatically sharing of data from your business bank account with your tax consultant. And for that, for funk sake: you have to apply and sign for it - with both parties!

There is no such thing as - someone collects data - and can share it. The collection at first, is most likely already illegal.

Well, if you want to nitpick about that, then you have to define what an LLM is.

Because: yes it is an LLM property to be non deterministic.

However it is not an "artificial neuronal network" property, as those are deterministic ... albeit the determinism can not be described. Unless you want to go hardcore nitpicking: this (insert a number) X billion parameters describe exactly the ANN (which is true, it does), and hence describes it determinism.

Modern AI are not LLMs, never where actually. They are based on LLMs. The whole thing is much more complex then an LLM or an ANN.

I suggest to start reading up on it ... or be left behind.

You are a computer scientist, you should be fascinated by them, instead of disregarding them as play tools.

Agnostic and atheist are orthogonal concepts.
Nope, if at all they are parallel. For the first few millimeters of the direction.

Most atheists are agnostics.
Nope. Being an Atheist makes you 100% not agnostic.

You are either an agnostic atheist, not believing in god, or an agnostic theist, if you believe there is a god.
That does not make any sense at all.

I suggest, if in doubt: go with the dictionary definition of both terms. /FACEPALM