"Just works" is not a mentality imposed by Microsoft, and has nothing to do with loss of control. It's simply (a consequence of) the idea that things which can be automated, should be. It is about good defaults, not lack of options.
TBH the reason I didn't go into details was because it's been a while. I set it up right after they made the change and don't remember 100%.
But my downloads folder is just the Downloads folder (/home/user/Downloads), I have "What should Firefox do with other files?" set to "Ask whether to open", and for most content types I have "Always ask" (I have "Open in Firefox" for PDF, AV1, and a few others where it's an option).
It's stayed that way for all versions ever since they made the change to save by default, up to almost latest (haven't moved to 121 yet)...
Indeed, the best way to learn how to do something that doesn't have a good writeup somewhere, is to search GitHub for nix code.
What you're talking about is called "feature creep" and is a surefire road to poor quality.
I, for example, don't use any of the extensions you mentioned. And I checked two at random and both had less than 10k users, so they're by no means "must have". If they had to include all functionality that every "power user who does not appreciate having to frequently add new extensions" ever wanted, they might as well just rename it FireDinosaur or something. It will be both extremely heavy, and quickly extinct.
I think the test for "free of copyrightable elements" is pretty simple - can you look at the new creation and recognize any copyrightable elements in it? The process by which it was created doesn't matter. Maybe I made this post entirely by copy-pasting phrases from other people, who knows (well, I didn't, only because it would be too much work), but it does not infringe either way...
From Wikipedia, "a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work".
You can probably can the output of an LLM 'derived', in the same way that if I counted the number of 'Q's in Harry Potter the result derived from Rowling's work.
But it's not 'derivative'.
Technically it's possible for an LLM to output a derivative work if you prompt it to do so. But most of its outputs aren't.
That same critique should apply to the LLM as well.
No, it shouldn't. Instead, you should compare it to the alternatives you have on hand.
The fact is,
- Using LLM was a better experience for me then reading a textbook.
- And it was also a better experience for me then watching recorded video lectures.
So, if I have to learn something, I have enough background to spot hallucinations, and I don't have a teacher (having graduated college, that's always true), I would consider using it, because it's better then the alternatives.
I just would never fully trust knowledge I gained from an LLM
There are plenty of cases where you shouldn't fully trust knowledge you gained from a human, too.
And there are, actually, cases where you can trust the knowledge gained from an LLM. Not because it sounds confident, but because you know how it behaves.
Why is that a problem?
For example, I've used it to learn the basics of Galois theory, and it worked pretty well.
- The information is stored in the model, do it can tell me the basics
- The interactive nature of taking to LLM actually helped me learn better than just reading.
- And I know enough general math so I can tell the rare occasions (and they indeed were rare) when it makes things up.
- Asking it questions can be better than searching Google, because Google needs exact keywords to find the answer, and the LLM can be more flexible (of course, neither will answer if the answer isn't in the index/training data).
So what if it doesn't understand Galois theory - it could teach it to me well enough. Frankly if it did actually understand it, I'd be worried about slavery.
Anyone who still has to regularly visit Reddit because of all the niche subreddits that have great communities there but 1 post per month here.
For those of us not American, can someone explain what fees are root talking about? Isn't it like one fee of $X/month?
I've just read the abstract of the study - but it doesn't seem to be about people mindlessly copying the AI and producing biased text as a result. Rather, it's about people seeing the points the AI makes, thinking "Good point!" and adjusting their own opinion accordingly.
So it looks to me like it's just the effect of where done view points get more exposure.
lily33
joined 1 year ago
To add about the distro framgentation, and particularly:
You might have. Some software is distributed as a portable binary and can run on any distro. However, many installers are distro-specific (or distro family-specific, since they're made for a specific package manager). For example, a software packaged for Ubuntu as a
.debfile would install fine on Ubuntu or Mint, and probably install fine on Debian, but if you want to install it on Fedora or Arch you'll have to manually re-package it.Most distro-specific software usually ships debian or ubuntu package - so you might go with that for that reason. Or Arch/Endeavor: while you'll rarely see an official Arch package, most often someone will have already re-packaged it and put it on the AUR.
That said, for the major distros, the desktop environment makes much more difference than the distro.