I’ve been using Asahi Linux on a Macbook M2 for about a year now and generally like the experience. There’s a few things I’m hoping for future improvements, but its definitively “good enough” for my needs now to use daily.

I used it for a few years and just stopped because of the partitioning and update issues.

What issues did you run into?

Sounds like Elgin go their cameras taken down so that college’s problem is solved. If the cameras were still up I can think if a few things the college could do. The college has a welding instruction department. I can think of no better coursework than constructing steel welded boxes the wrap around cameras. That would have prevented the flock workers from taking the bags off.

Alternatively, the school could have erected signage directly in front of the cameras obscuring the view, and if the flock workers moved the signs they could criminally charge them vandalism and sue the Flock for paying for it to happen.

I’d love to see the re-enlistment data results of these sailors when each comes up for it in the months and years ahead. I would guess there would be a dramatically lower number of those choosing to re-enlist from the Lincoln’s crew. So we likely haven’t seen all the damage this abuse of our sailors has caused our military readiness.

You’re certainly welcome to your own opinion

Why golly thanks

Sure thing, friend.

How? By asking their chatbot to verify each statement?

Wow, you’re really failing on the reading comprehension tonight. This is explained in the immediately proceeding sentence to the one you quoted of mine which you either skipped or did not comprehend. That sentence is “even those with only a little bit of knowledge”. The student wouldn’t have to ask a chatbot. The student would already know enough domain knowledge of the example topic to know the LLM output is wrong.

I’m not sure whats up with your abrasiveness tonight, but I’m not interested in it. Maybe tomorrow will be better. Have a nice night.

Just look at the dot com bubble,

That example supports my argument, not yours. During the dotcom boom hundreds and thousands of companies started up hoping to gain market share and become leaders in the “Internet E-commerce” space as we called it during that time. Lots and LOTS of these companies failed, but not all of them.

The dotcom boom gave us giant behemoths that exist today like Amazon and Google. Amazon is the default online store. Google is the default search engine and online ad networks. This is exactly my point. Most of the AI LLM model companies will fail and cease to exist, but the few that do survive will be massively successful in their space.

I don’t really have anything else I want to dive into beyond this.

Uh, okay. I’m confused about the purpose of your initial post. Did you just want to make statements and not be challenged on them or have conversation on it?

You can get a dot com domain name for about $11 (depending on availability),

And during the dotcom boom it was $35/year (with a minimum 2 year sub), but that was about regulatory scarcity by InterNIC (or later Network Solutions), not a technological limitation.

my internet bill in Chicago is around $20 monthly for a GIGABIT of speed. My 5G phone plan is about $60 a month.

Again, this supports my argument, not yours. During the dotcom boom days there were thousands of little ISPs each selling dial up. Most of those are gone, but a handful that developed broadband are the companies that are mega players with large revenue today. I don’t know who your ISP is, but for conversation lets say its Comcast. Comcast Corporation’s annual net revenue for fiscal year 2025 was $123.71 billion.

So my point being, these things that people used to believe briefly would be insanely valuable are kind of just common and understood at this point. Technologies that were once inaccessible or very expensive are now available to many very cheap, it’s how it’s happened every time before.

I think you’re seeing commoditization of technology and assuming that it means less money is spent. Its the opposite. In 2001 how many internet subscriptions did you have? Probably one, your ISP and it probably cost you $15-$25 for dial up internet or maybe $60 for broadband (Cable Modem, ADSL, or possibly ISDN).

How many internet subscriptions do you have today? You’ve already listed two, your residential ISP, and your mobile phone internet connection. How about Spotify? Netflix? HBOmax? Some fitness app perhaps? A cloud based digital picture frame service? How about SaaS solutions? Adobe Creative Cloud maybe? How about any online gaming? Gamepass? An MMORPG? Something with real money to in-game currency for digital items?

I am pretty confident you’re probably spending way more on internet services today than you were during the dotcom bubble bursting.

You won’t need a data center to run LLMs that are powerful enough to do certain real world job tasks.

To do some tasks sure. We’re starting to see that today with small tasks and embedded running on mobile phones, but I think its naive to assume that thats going to be all the AI each of us is going to use and need in the years ahead. Even then, those local models running on phones I mentioned are tied to other monetized services where you either pay for it or your data is sold in exchange for their use.

If local computing was enough to do computing needs we wouldn’t have cloud computing. We have cloud computing. We will likely have some form of cloud AI far into the future too that eclipses the ability of our local compute to handle.

And like you mentioned, companies like Amazon and Google don’t even need to make money on their LLMs, the competition is massive.

Like all for-profit businesses, they don’t need to make more money, but they want to. If AI is a business offering people will pay for (and it certainly is in at least some places/industries) companies will try to corner that market and the profits that come with it. Lots will fail as has happened in history with other bubbles. A handful will succeed and reap the profits.

It doesn’t do anything better or in an innovative way,

It does it in a very applicable way in the sense that these students will be encountering AI “in the wild” in the years to come. The ways and methods AI is wrong isn’t really identical to the way humans deceive. As an example, most humans won’t straight up manufacture a fake citation to prove a point where this is a commonplace action of factually wrong LLMs.

In this way using AI to produce the content that students are assigned to criticise is much more useful and less costly than human generated content. I’m not saying that LLMs should be used exclusively to create the target content, but it would be equally wrong to use human generated target content exclusively because humans are wrong in different ways (and that content is much more costly to create).

especially when accounting for the costs associated with AI.

Are you talking about monetary costs or something more philosophical (ethical, environmental, sociological)? The monetary costs would be extremely cheap. Probably less than $10 in tokens for the entire curriculum for the AI generated content. The necessary human contributions would be significantly more expensive, likely tens of thousands of dollars. The human component is still absolutely necessary, but it would be the far more monetarily expensive part.

It is unnecessary to make a brand new round hole for this square peg.

AI content students (when graduated into adults) have the evaluate is a new peg with a new shape. We can pretend its the same shape as the previous one and attempt to use the prior solution, but it will fail the education system and the students going through it arriving unprepared in the adult world rife with AI content that they will need to evaluate in their daily lives.

Your reading comprehension is ass.

Cool, so is yours apparently. Someone else already pointed this out , and I already admitted my mistake.

It doesn’t make sense to use chatbots in any learning environment, where you have no way to verify output.

You’re certainly welcome to your own opinion, but we’ve already covered counter arguments to that point too..

High school also functions as a method to prepare students for how to interact with the world. Dumping them into a world where AI is commonplace with no knowledge or mental protection from it would be a disservice to them.

You’re just describing a critical thinking class

All classes are critical thinking classes. Which ones are you suggesting aren’t?

but with the extra step of ai generating the materials.

AI generates part of the material with human effort and checkpoints wrapped around it. That’s the appropriate use of AI anyway. Nowhere am I suggesting uncheck AI generated material be presented as learning material

When everyone can run local models that can do most tasks for less than 1000th the price, no one will pay for AI services.

I don’t agree with that argument. If that logic held then no one would be using cloud services because they’d just buy enough compute to run all their workloads locally, yet cloud servers and hyperscalers are only growing, not shrinking. While some of that growth is from customers buying AI (using either GPUs or dedicated silicon), even without the AI growth cloud services continue to grow.

There’s a reason they’re trying to keep RAM prices so high.

Who is “they” here? Do you think there is a conspiracy to inflate RAM prices and that the high prices are not because of RAM demand in the free market?

You can use a local LLMs 9b to do tasks that a frontier model couldn’t do 2 years ago.

Sure, but I think we can all agree that even today’s most modern models are shit at lots of jobs and tasks. I believe there will be a practical limit to our technology that is not AGI, but I think we’re still a long way from it.

Will there be profitable companies in the future that heavily rely on AI? Yes, but it’s not going to be anything related to software. Any AI focused company will never be profitable.

I’m not sure I’m following you distinction here. The profitable companies in your statement, where are they going to get and run their AI models?

There are certainly some AI-only companies like OpenAI and Anthropic, and I agree both of them have a tough road ahead to profitability because they run on someone else’s compute/silicon. However there are companies that are highly vertically integrated that have their own compute like Google and (barf!) Grok.

I see a future where the non-vertically-integrated AI companies get bought up by someone with their own large scale compute real estate. Amazon struck out building their own AI (Nova), so I’m guessing Bezos and the board would love to buy up Anthropic or OpenAI if they could afford either.

Mlem

You used an em dash in your post response. Its extremely rare for a human to do that, but extremely common for LLMs to do so.

Which scenario are you suggesting with your statement?

• “AI companies [together] are never going to earn the money back that was invested [every single one of them] in them”

OR

• "AI companies are [No single AI company is] never going to earn the money back that was invested in [them] that company

I agree with the first, I disagree with the second. Further, the AI companies (and even investors) know this too. What is happening right now is every AI company is pooring massive resources into becoming the default AI solution. This is the current generation’s VHS vs Betamax war. Prior wars were Blu-ray vs HD-DVD, Coke vs Pepsi, etc.

The single winning AI company (and maybe one more) will be able to pay back this initial investment, and much more.

That is an indication of the LLM “temperature” being set too high. Unfortunatly it looks like Google has disabled user/operator settable temperature replacing it with a new “thinking levels” setting. If you could set the temperature to zero, you get rid of any sycophancy and nearly all hallucination and instead just get back “I don’t know” type answers, which is my preference anyway.

Sadly it looks like the lowest “thinking level” is “minimal” but even that level allows for the model to introduce reasoning (and hallucination). I don’t like this change tha Google made.

Can I ask what software/device are you using to post to Lemmy?

You’re right. I misread that. I think they’re making a mistake with that, but I get it. How to adapt the early education methods to a world with AI now has no proven path yet.

Give him some credit. He didn’t claim all of the microbiome production. He didn’t take credit for the Hydrogen Sulfide created.

AI is anathema to teaching and learning.

Your statement on its face value, sure I agree, but I can see a path were AI is a fantastic tool for teaching and learning critical thinking. If the teacher is able to alter the “temperature” setting of the LLM, they could crank it all the way up to 1 (meaning full creativity) which will likely induce AI hallucination.

The AI LLM can create output which can speak to a topic but even those with only a little bit of knowledge can easily see the flaws in the AI response. It would give the student a chance to see how rational sounding output can be factually wrong. It would teach students to evaluate the statements individually and tease out logical fallacies or even outright manufactured falsehoods.

Further, if the teacher can again set the temperature lower (perhaps to .7) which reduces the creativity then the LLM output would be more factual with possible logical or factual errors. This would increase the difficulty on the students to be able to inspect what they are given as LLM output and explore the tools and resources available to provide a human check on not only AI, but anything that another human says too.

It can become an excellent tool for teaching critical thinking.

EDIT: The more I’m thinking about this, the better I see this as a teaching tool. Tests students take to cover the material can be teacher created questions accompanied with a completely AI generated answer and the question to the student is “Is this true or bullshit? If bullshit, which parts are wrong?”. Every question on the entire test could use that format. It would be a great test of the student because they’d have to know the material well enough to know where the LLM produced a “right sounding answer” but was in fact, wrong. Even better, if a student tried to cheat using their own AI to answer the “bullshit or not?” question there’s an even higher chance the students cheating LLM would give a wrong answer because of the repeated Error Cascade.

I think this is the right approach they’re taking:

• no AI for young kids so they can learn the underlying principals of things on their own
• AI for older kids that have learned those fundamentals and will have to grow up and interact in a world with AI as adults

This is the same logic used for decades where young kids weren’t allowed to use calculators for simple addition/subtraction/multiplication/division, but calculators were a requirement for higher Algebra and above.

Gotcha, thank you for that. So they DO have a screen, but its normally in use for the speed/charge gauge cluster, etc. Good solution.

If that doesn’t happen here, I can’t think of a valid reason to keep her over someone willing to do reforms.

Politically this is gift to Mamdani that she holds the position:

• He didn’t appoint her, so he has low risk of keeping her
• It can make him look apollitical that he is willing to keep on staff from the previous administration and not act purely on political grounds
• He earns political points, influence, and support from the rich family because he did not remove her
• She knows she has a political target on her back, so she’s incentivized to keep him happy carrying out his mandates
• When NYPD has a scandal, he can immediately point to her, and her leadership, and fire/prosecute her for it
• When the removal finally does happen he’ll score points with his base for removing yet another relic of the Adams administration and be able to appoint a reformer