Because, they go longer and have time to dive into the details. Movies seem rushed and truncated to me after watching a series of eight or ten episodes now.

OTOH, a lot of TV shows spend too much time on filler content in an attempt to both increase runtime but also build anticipation. Only to have the resolution at the end of the season rushed with zero room for the emotional outcome to expand and relax. Which gives it an unsatisfying feeling.

Then, movies (that are done well) make efficient use of their time budget to tell the story and not have multiple hours of empty filler content to pad out the runtime.

A common issue is early super hero movies was the constant re-introduction of various characters, instead of just telling the story. Which resulted in half the movie re-explaining who these various people are and then only half to tell the actual story.

Both TV and movies have their place, it just depends on the material how well it fits.

For example, I don’t think Lord of the Rings would have worked as a TV show, and I don’t think Wheel of Time would work as movies.

That being said, one of the things that killed WoT was the baffling decision to veer so far from the source material. The first season spent more than half the runtime on small minor things, or things that never even happened.

No, it isn’t. The headline talks about how Trump has soured the US’s relationship with other countries.

It’s possible to make that statement without outright saying “Trump bad!”

I guess you missed the point also.

Well, for one, you replied to yourself and not to the person who replied to you.

the US is in the news because we have an asshole for a president that outwardly wears his corruption

but make no mistake, almost all world leaders are inwardly pieces of shit.

This is classic what-aboutism at it’s finest. This discussion is not about “Trump bad. Everyone else good!”

Which one is the best model now? Last I checked (well over a year ago) it was still whisper.

That’s definitely a thing: fetishizing people because of their race or some other characteristic

I know that’s a thing, but would you call that “reverse racism”? That’s the point I was trying to make, that such a term is ridiculous.

Statistically people with children love longer. Just don’t have a choice with the things you have to do. It leads to more exercise (running around) and sleeping earlier (you have zero energy after they go to sleep).

They understand that it’s just called racism, but it’s not universally seen as wrong.

That’s actually a valid point. But I was speaking in a more general sense, in that literally nowhere else in the world will you hear the phrase “reverse racism”.

Thinking that any modern CPU vendor would lock out Linux is not naive, it’s the demonstration of pure ignorance and utter lack of knowledge in the world of technology.

But it is a thing… People can absolutely be racist against white people.

It’s not a thing. If someone hates another person based on their race, that’s racism. This idea that it only applies to hate towards black people is very much a US only issue. The rest of the world understands that racism towards any person is wrong.

Technically you could argue that “reverse racism” would be explicitly liking someone based entirely on their race, and nothing else. But even that’s a stupid way of looking at it.

am inclined to believe that people who use the word "sapi*"anything

You mean the word “sapient”? Because sentient doesn’t even have the letter “p” in it.

just very very gullible and/or Dunning-Kruger-victims.

A Dunning-Kruger “victim”…

You completely missed the point

Say that again into a mirror and then you’ll actually be making a real and coherent point.

So you’re arguing that we should all continue to support and create open source software, right?

To be clear, that is my position.

People didn’t stop painting when cameras were invented. Ultimate It’s just another tool that can be used.

And LLMs can be used to reverse engineer proprietary software. So there’s that.

And since the (US) courts have ruled that copyright violations are fine for training LLMs, we can extrapolate that using said LLMs to replicate proprietary software is also fine.

so you understood neurons better than neuroscientists

No, but I have no idea what that statement has to do with artificial neurons.

You have missed the part where no scientist worth their name claims to be able to fully explain how consciousness works and whether or not it affects our decision making.

And you have missed the part where I explicitly mentioned that LLMs are NOT “sapient” or “sentient”, which would preclude “consciousness” also.

Okay, I think we’re done here. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Says the person using colloquial definitions and applying them to a field of active research.

The facts don’t care about your opinions. A basic program with hardcoded decision trees is “intelligent”. An LLM can do more at a dynamic (and probabilistic) level. Therefore, LLMs fit the academic definition of intelligence.

Even the general word definition:

the ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations.

I can point an LLM to my code that’s never been seen by an LLM and it can read it, explain to me exactly what it does, point out bugs, and even give suggestions on areas that can be improved.

Is it “smart”? Debatable.

Is it conscious, sapient, sentient, or “alive”? Hard no. And that was never the argument.

Edit: autocorrect speaking mistake

LLMs clap are clap not clap AI clap.

Yes they are.

They’re built on artificial neural networks that share a basis (a basis, not a replica) with biological neurons that produce probabilistic results (not deterministic).

Plagiarism is the core and only mechanism of LLMs that produces anything that people get impressed by.

As opposed to what? Don’t get me wrong, the blatant violation of copyright is a massive issue, and in a logical world would bury each and every LLM company out there. But what other mechanism to “learn” do you think exists?

gullible people believe there is “intelligence” involved.

If you mean “intelligence” in the colloquial sense, then sure. But that’s not the same word that researchers use. Intelligence is simply the ability to make a decision based on input data. And by that definition even an if-else statement is a form of intelligence (which it is). So then the discussion becomes the degree or “amount” intelligence.

LLMs are absolutely intelligent. The issue is that most people conflate “intelligence” with “sentience” and “sapience”, which they are not. They aren’t “clever” or “creative”. They are extremely good at taking large swaths of information and distilling it, finding hidden patterns, of finding specific data points that are otherwise deeply buried. Good examples are finding bugs in code or novel and massively beneficial uses for existing medication (which has already happened multiple times)

I’m not defending the current state of AI. Energy use is a problem. Water use is a problem. The grift is a problem. The copyright violations are a problem.

But this “LLMs are not AI” rhetoric is just pure ignorance.

Well, the “pedophile ring” thing turned out to be mostly true with the Epstein stuff.

You know Albert the artist?

Canada is only somewhat smarter than us.

I understand what you’re saying, but the numbers don’t support this. There are far right conservatives in every country. Finding them in Canada is just statistically expected.

It’s poorly designed infrastructure. Don’t blame the people (at least not entirely). The true fault lies with the city planners.

SteamDB buyout money ain’t coming back from their now devalued goods

Wait… did I miss something?