Was on the fence for a long time, and I made the move just recently (after the pricing changes. Didn’t effect me since I was grandfathered in, but I saw it as a harbinger for worse things to come) With the creation of Wizarr, it solved my biggest problems with Jellyfin. I can just send an invite link, and it creates accounts for people on Jellyfin, Audiobookshelf, and Kavita, and lets me set up introductory guides for everything. Despite the menu UI/UX being significantly worse than Plex, playback is smoother, load times are shorter, and it can actually handle streaming to really slow internet speeds, something that Plex had a lot of trouble with.

The only app I noticed missing was the Tizen app, but they are working on getting it approved. I only had one family member using a Tizen TV, so I just gave them an old chromecast to run off of instead.

My guy, expect to see shit when in a shitposting community, that’s the whole point. If you don’t like shitposts (not sure why you are saying it isn’t a shitpost, it’s literally a perfect example of one) then block the community and save yourself some cycles.

How does this happen? I call them wall warts as well, and nobody around me does. I will follow up with “phone charger”

Your understanding of Aphantasia is a bit off, I think the folks in the second group are just stupid. I have complete Aphantasia, and if it was explained to me, I can understand what your plans for something would be. If I was shown a CAD model, it would be extremely clear. The things I can’t do is see my wife’s face in my head, or picture the last place I left something. However, that doesn’t mean I couldn’t describe to you what my wife looked like, or that I can’t remember where I left something. Also, thinking abstractly is what people with Aphantasia are best at. I can’t remember the specifics, but they are significantly more likely to end up in a STEM field where all they do is abstract thought (myself included)

I understand though, it’s easy for me to think about how someone who can picture things in their mind would experience things, because I can see things with my eyes. But someone who has a mind’s eye can’t really understand what it would be like to not have one. Most things that people would think are issues for me aren’t, I’ve just got different ways of remembering and thinking about things that doesn’t require needing to see them in my head.

I picked sentience as the culmination of the definitions of Intelligence, awareness, etc. as it ends up being circular with the definitions of those terms, and has a concrete definition that has been widely accepted to be provable by society and science.

I would argue otherwise, as a black box that I have coded an algorithm to prove the collatz conjecture for, actually has no intelligence whatsoever, as it doesn’t do anything intelligent, it just runs through a set of steps, completely without awareness that it is even doing anything at all. It may seem intelligent to you, because you don’t understand what it does, but at the end of the day it just runs through instructions.

I wouldn’t call the snake head responding to stimulus intelligent, as it is not using any form of thought at all to react, it’s purely mechanical. In the same way, a program that has been written that solves a problem is mechanical, it itself doesn’t solve any problem, it simply runs through, or reacts to, a set of given instructions.

I’ve gone down the recursive definitions rabbit hole, and while it’s way to much to chart out here, the word that all words like “intelligence” and “thought” all eventually point to is “sentience.” And while the definition of sentience also ends up being largely circular as well, we’ve at least reached a term that has been used to make modern legislation based on actual scientific study and is something widely accepted as provable, which LLMs don’t meet. One of the most common tools for determining sentience is reactionary vs complex actions.

I disagree that an if/else statement is the most basic element of intelligence, I was just playing into your hypothetical. An if/else is purely reactionary, which doesn’t actually give any signs of intelligence at all. A dead, decapited snake head will still bite something that enters its mouth, but there wasn’t any intelligent choice behind it, it was also purely reactionary.

I also think that a bit is information in the same way that Shakespeare’s complete works is information, just at a much smaller scale. A bit on its own means nothing, but given context, say, “a 1 means yes and a 0 means no to the question ‘are you a republican?’” With that context it actually contains a bunch of information. Same with Shakespeare. Without the context of culture, emotion, and a language to describe those things, Shakespeare’s works are equally useless as a bit without context.

I read the study you listed, and I also disagree that “having a world model” is a good definition of awareness/conciousness, and I disagree that this paper proves that LLMs have a world view altogether. To be clear, I have taken multiple universtiy classes on ANNs (LLMs weren’t a thing when I was in university) and have taken multiple classes (put on by my employer) on LLMs, so I’m pretty familiar how they work under the hood. Whether they are trained to win, or are trained with what a valid move looks like, the data they use to store that training looks the same. It is some number of chained, weighted connections that represent what the next best token(s) (or in OthelloGPT’s case, the next valid move) might look like. This is not intelligence, this is again reactionary. OthelloGPT was trained on 20,000,000+ games of othello, all of which contained only valid moves. Of course this means that OthelloGPT will have weighted connections that will more likely lead to valid moves. Yes, it will hallucinate things when given a scenario it hasn’t seen before, and that hallucination will almost always look like a valid move, because that’s all it has been trained on. (I say almost here because it still made invalid moves, although rarely) I don’t even think this proves it has a world view, it just knows what weights lead to a valid move in Othello, given a prior list of moves. The probes they use are simply modifying the character sequence that OthelloGPT is responding to, or the weights they use to determine which token comes next. There is no concept of “board state” being remembered, as with all LLMs it simply returns the most likely next token sequence that would follow the previously given token sequences, which in this case is previous moves.

Reactionary actions aren’t enough to understand if something is capable of thought. Like my snake example above, there are many living and not living things that will make actions without thought, just simple reactions to outside stimulus. LLMs are in this category, as they are incapable of intelligence. They only can regurgitate a response that should most likely follow the question, nothing more. There is no path for modern LLMs to have intelligence, as the way they are trained fundamentally doesn’t lead to intelligence.

That’s fair, but as someone who likes to contribute to FOSS projects with features that I want, I’d like every tool I use to be FOSS, so I can make them work exactly the way I want them to, while also providing something to those that don’t want to/can’t pay for a tool like this, or just don’t want to have the inevitablity of having spent hundreds of hours getting used to a tool, only for the owning company to make it unusable for you.

In FOSS projects, if a project starts to go a route you don’t like, you can ignore all future updates and still get the exact experience you wanted.

I think this is what Louis was going for. He doesn’t want to ask for no more companies, just companies that make a product (doesn’t even need to be a good one) where its sole purpose is to try (doesn’t even need to succeed) and be useful to the consumer.

I think he hit his mark pretty well for the symbol, but whether or not I agree with his view on things is a different story entirely.

I’m guessing you are only in programming communities, I’ve seen it talked about in plenty of circles outside of programming

Woah, i didn’t know that the effect would be so drastic. I want to point out to those struggling to get it to work that, as diverging mentioned, your arm needs to be fully extended. Also, the blind spot is about a thumb’s width, at least for me, and is only visible at a specific x/y axis location. Any deviation from that single spot will cause it to stop working. I could tell I was close to the spot when parts of my thumb would disappear, and just had to slowly move it around until I found the spot that looked like the thumb was gone completely.

I am selfhosting! And yeah, I actually forgot there was a theme on the phone/messaging/camera apps, the theme just came with the OS and I haven’t bothered changing anything. The browser isn’t themed, it’s just the GrapheneOS browser Vanadium.

I think you’re fishing for some philosophical discussion/redefinition of terms, but I’m not. If you are saying that any algorithm that makes a decision based on criteria is “thinking” or “Intelligent”, then sure, so are LLMs. That definition isn’t one that is accepted by almost anyone, but let’s say that it’s true. In that case, the autocomplete on your phone’s keyboard is thinking and intelligent, so is a random number generator, and so is even a basic if/else statement in programming.

When people discuss “thought” or “intelligence” typically the core definition comes from awareness. Awareness of the decisions that a being is making. LLMs do not have the capability of awareness. It doesn’t understand why it makes the decisions it does, it has no clue if it has created an answer out of thin air or not. It isn’t even aware that it gave an answer. When asked to explain its rationale, it will often contradict the conclusion it came to, because there is no awareness of a decision even being made, it has simply been trained on which words follow which words in an explanation, and strings them together.

Sure, when I say “reason” here I am using this dictionary definition: “The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.”

There is no discussion to be had about current LLMs being able to reason. They cannot, full stop. They are an advanced form of autocomplete, nothing more. If you genuinely think that LLMs can reason, or are even close to reasoning, you need to research how they work. Not saying an AI that can genuinely reason is out of the question, it just can’t be achieved with the methods used to create LLMs.

Also, plagiarism is bad? Like, many of the ways LLMs use the content they scrape would be indirectly illegal for a human to do, and as lawsuits are settled, will likely be illegal for LLMs to do as well.

Have you been in the American minimum wage job market in the last 10 years or so? Every job that pays minimum wage doesn’t give enough hours for the employee to be full-time, which means they don’t get benefits, retirement contributions, etc. In these cases, outside of the onboarding costs, a $15 an hour employee does in fact cost $15 an hour.

In every store I’ve been in, I’m the guy who has to take everything out of my cart and put it on the little conveyor belt thing. Self checkout is a second or two on top of that (which is usually made up by not having to wait in line) with no real additional effort (I’m already picking up and placing my stuff in a specific spot) I also can type in my number for the coupons at the same time I’m scanning my card, and move the bags into my cart as my payment is being processed, which ends up saving even more time.

The only place I appreciate a cashier is when I get a boatload of groceries at Costco, those folks are box-packing wizards.

50% chance of your 50% chance of you waifu becoming real becoming your waifu

Yeah, that’s what I thought. Unless you’ve got something meaningful to add, I’m calling it here. You argue with 100% emotion, never adding anything meaningful to a conversation. Glad you can admit that you’re just being obstinate

“NU UH!!!” Never seen someone just bullshit before while using quotation formatting. You’re putting on a clinic of being a slimy dishonest asshole

Please, point out where I’m making stuff up. With zero efforr responses like these, I’m not sure why I’m even bothering to respond to you. If you think I’m lying about the definition of race, here are all the human-relevant definitions of race in several dictionaries, almost all would suggest how I’m using race is the most common:

Race as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary

1. A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group. Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification, in part because there is more genetic variation within groups than between them. 2.A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution.
2. A genealogical line; a lineage.
3. Humans considered as a group.
4. A usually geographically isolated population of organisms that differs from other populations of the same species in certain heritable traits.

Race as defined by Marriam Webster dictionary

1. any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry
2. a group of people sharing a common cultural, geographical, linguistic, or religious origin or background
3. the descendants of a common ancestor : a group sharing a common lineage

Oh! Okay! So once you deliberately strip race of all cultural and material context white can be declared a race ‘because they look the same’

I didn’t strip my race definition of anything. I’m using the definitions above. Me using the “look the same” example was to help solidify that race is a social construct, not that white was a race.

Well if you’re willing to just compartmentalize literally everything until your premise is affirmed then you can tell yourself anything, can’t you?

I’m not compartmentalizing anything. I’m using the dictionary definition of race. If you mean something else when you say race, then please, tell me your definition.

You’ve chosen a definition of race that’s completely useless for everything except one task: to be able to claim victimhood for the privileged class

I’ve used a definition of race that fits 4 of the 7 dictionary definitions that I’ve seen. Yes, I guess I’m not using the ones regarding ancestry and genealogy, but those just segment what a race is further. Under those definitions, “black” isn’t a race.

HOW FUCKING STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO LECTURE SOMEONE WHEN YOU OPENLY ADMIT YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT’S GOING ON

I understand the historical event you are referencing, and I understand that, in some places in the world, Irish immigrants weren’t part of the “true white” race until they became racist towards folks without white skin and became police. What I don’t understand is what that has to do with anything we’re talking about. That doesn’t make “white” any less of a race, that just means that white people in the past were extra racist, being racist against people from a different geological location, not just being racist by the color of their skin.

Bet you’re white. “My feelings are more important than your facts and I’m elevated from you enough to speak without even knowing them” is extremely white coded

Please, point out where I am using feelings and you are using facts. Please, point out anything I’ve said that is not truthful. That’s how arguements are done, and that’s what I’ve been doing to everything you’ve said from the beginning. From my end, you have yet to have an argument that is more than “YOU’RE STUPID” without addressing a single thing I’m saying.