My job requires us to use Teams for our remote meetings, and it is good in some ways and complete shit in others. The meeting quality is fine, but it can't even go into full screen video.
We use Jabber for other remote meetings, and it has a full screen option. I've used Jitsi for other personal meetings, and it goes into full screen just fine.

I hated Teams at first, because I was used to Jabber. Now I am still not at all happy with Teams, but I hate it less because I've learned were most things are. It is NOT an intuitive program AT ALL, but I've learned how to use what I need. They will get used to Element.

That would require him considering women as human beings rather than objects to fuck. He isn't capable of that.

Sometimes that choice is the right one. Not all parents are good parents. Some are downright toxic.

Yes, there is no such thing as a "rogue" AI. These are programs that were intentionally pointed at targets. They are more advanced script kiddies, and are otherwise no different from traditional hackers. They are borderline terrorists since their objective is to bring about political change through fear.

OO delivers very well if you know how to use it. If you don't know how to use it, then you will naturally get yourself into a situation you can't get out of, and therefore think the language doesn't work.

If OOP increases project costs, then you are absolutely using it wrong.

KDE is still awesome, despite it lacking a decent file manager. Konqueror used to be the best file manager I ever used, but then some moron decided to neuter it in favor of the massively worse Dolphin.

Kubuntu hasn't gone anywhere.

It's been a long slide downward, but AI will accelerate the need for exohertz computers to render a Mandelbrot set in less than a week.

You demonstrated in a sentence and a half that you don't have the slightest clue how object-oriented programming works.

If it helps, that ability was lost thousands of years ago, in just about every culture on Earth.

Training these models is incredibly expensive. In fact it's so expensive that there is no viable economic model to do so. As such, their options are either to drastically slow down the amount of new models trained or to go bankrupt. This is just a nice whitewashing of that. It remains to be seen if even using their models can be profitable, but we know that with the cost of training the next one they can't be.

Everything was largely fine until Feminism. You can trace every single step of this disease back to its Feminist roots.

The only unemployment harm caused by AI will be inflicted by so-called "leaders" who fire people because they don't understand the limits of the technology.

Social media is like if someone took all the problems of usenet and amplified them to the point of unusability...

Writing music (or any other creative endeavor) is not just about mimicking learned patterns, but about experimenting until you create something actually new. Models are recombining patterns using deep learning, which can give the appearance of novelty without actually being genuine creations, unless there's adequate guidance and shaping by a human. The problem is that there is a way that real inspiration and innovation *feel* which becomes delocalized when the cognitive labor is mostly offloaded to a model and thus hard to recognize, especially if you don't actually have experience doing the creative act yourself. So people who don't know how to write music will make slop, and even experienced artists could end up with stuff that is mostly slop if they're not paying very careful attention.

Plus the social value of creativity is based on recognition of the effort involved in creating novel things; many people appreciate art because it reflects human experience and human effort, which can get muddled or lost with generative AI.

I have been writing music and studying computing since childhood and studying some machine learning since I was a teen, three decades ago. I don't think all generative AI is useless or offensive (though the resource overconsumption with the LLMs-in-everything fad is a serious problem, and I do believe there is a type of expected-usage violation / consent problem with many AI vendor training sets and products). The disagreements about deep learning and generative AI (exaggerated by a bubble-driven profit motive, unfortunately) will take work to solve because new social contract concepts will have to gradually be explored and tested over the coming years by billions of humans until a general consensus is reached on what fair use now means and how intellectual "property" ethics are navigated.

I think people are asserting a lot of things which amount to gazing into a crystal ball around these topics, but there are at least two things which I feel pretty sure of based on my experience: the human creative process is much more complicated than LLM/GAN training+prompting, and actual human creativity has value which a machine is unlikely to replicate effectively at least anytime soon â" though simulacra of creativity pass enough of a capitalist sniff test to make money, detracting from the livelihoods of artists already dealing with the nightmarish economic calculus of trying to make creative things while paying the bills in the contemporary era.

Of course, litigative copyright scalping companies don't add any value to society either and are effectively just another type of nuisance; Round Hill looks to be a hedge fund manager's project to make money off others' labor without actually facilitating human creativity. Cue the infamous "I believe everyone involved in this story should die" Norm Macdonald line... (which is much more applicable here than the original transphobic "joke"!)