Makes sense to me, I've seen a lot of people distrusting all the COVID science, mostly by making statements like 'They said the vaccine would protect us!', implying that 'Science' told them that it would be 100% effective with 0% chance of side effects.
When more realistically it'd produce something like "vaccine reduced infections by 95%(+-2%, 95% certainty) in the test group 8 weeks after dosage."
Then pile on literally hundreds of studies looking at various other aspects and sub groups.

I'd imagine that they aren't turning off all the lights on the truck, so somebody looking should easily see it coming from more than 450 meters away, because the distance to SEE a light emitting object is drastically further than the distance you can see non-emitting objects illuminated by light you're emitting yourself.
Looking, the trucks seem to have all the standard lights.

Humans aren't infallible, but even pretty stupid people clearly do things when they think that "AI" currently can't. There is at minimum some kind of filtering and going back to the well happening that the LLMs can't manage. I am not ruling out them becoming capable of it in the future, but they are clearly not there now.

That was literally my first reply to you in this thread. Can you read them?

The computer on Star Trek is not intelligent, it's intelligence is simulated.

LLMs aren't even that smart. Their intelligence is imagined.

So contradicting yourself further is supposed to make it better?

What happened to the deficit under Clinton, who signed a welfare reform bill that made substantive changes?

That would be nice, but even if it happened games would still require patches because the systems they run on change. This is true even of consoles ever since Xbox.

Don't even have to argue about the quality of AI, just recognize that people will want to use a screen to interact with AI. It *might* displace a lot of 'virtual keyboard' interaction or complex UI interaction with natural language on the input side, but people will want the screen output even if AI is driving the visuals.

Now I'm imagining trying to play mobile games like you are talking to some DM back and forth audibly..

Except they were kind of right about laptops, most people have a full fledged laptop for 'big interaction', because the phone is fantastic and all, but when the interaction is too complicated, it's a nightmare.

In terms of 'AI' somehow displacing phones, it would only do so with some as-yet unseen AR glasses that could do the job without being hundreds of grams of gadgetry on your face, combined with maybe a smart ring to provide some sort of tactile feedback to 'virtual interfaces'.

This is all orthogonal to AI, AI isn't going to make a screen less desirable, whether on a phone or in glasses. If anything, AI makes some things demand screens even more. People don't want to *listen* to voicemail, they want to read a transcription because it is so much faster. Trying to 'skim' is only possible visually. People take voice feedback as a consolation prize, if they are driving or cannot actually look, or *maybe* for audiobook to enjoy the speaker's voice and casual pace for recreational story, but usually people want text to read for speed's sake. This is ignoring visuals which obviously demand screens.

I think it's an excellent case study in a company thinking of what sounds good for *them* rather than for the customer and the sort of failure that can happen after smelling your own farts that much.

Yeah, Windows core was ridiculous. They championed how they had a GUI-free experience, and then you boot it up and... GUI.

It was such a pointless exercise, and missing the point of why so many of the Linux systems didn't run a GUI. They thought the server admins just didn't want a start menu/taskbar. But they needed to actually still be GUI because applications still needed GUI to do some things. Linux servers not running GUI was mostly because the ecosystem doesn''t really need it, and that sort of ecosystem lends itself to a certain orchestration style. Microsoft failed to make that orchestration happen, just removed taskbar/start menu as more of a token gesture. They have *an* orchestration strategy, but it's just very different and also no consistency between first party and third party, or hell, much consistency among Microsoft first party offerings.

I think that fairly well sums it up.

Unless your hands-on work is totally repetitive, like assembly line worker, warehouse work, or some agricultural workers, your job is probably safe. If you do hands-on work in construction, police, hospital, military; your job is probably safe.

If you work at a computer terminal, or some kind of paperwork; your job may not so safe.

Ironically, ChromeOS is succeeding in select niches precisely because it is built around that "only web apps" use case. An utterly disposable client device because all applications and data are internet hosted. Windows 11SE fails in those niches because it goes too far into apps and the device actually mattering a bit more.

Of course, ChromeOS is a platform that institutions like schools love inflicting on people, but not really a choice people choose for themselves, and so not a lot of growth beyond that. So the result is people "growing out of ChromeOS" as they get out of school. Google hopes to change this by just tucking it all into Android and having at least some platform with residual relevance to a "grown up" computing experience.

But Windows 11SE has always been in a super weird awkward in-between. More 'capable' than ChromeOS in common usage, yet you could just get "real Windows" and run anything you like. The biggest problem is Microsoft didn't understand that lock-in to the Microsoft Store is not what would make them compete with ChromeOS, they just convinced themselves because that was the customer concept that would have been most profitable to them if they existed.