I'm all for AI, personally. When using it as a programmer it's a huge force multiplier, just pay attention to what it's doing.

Nice. All available in a torrent; citizen journalists have at it.

Not just to boost the payload, but to reduce the wastage of literally irreplaceable helium as well. It's a completely non-renewable resource and there are other applications that there are no substitutes for (such as coolant).

Thanks for at least not being so angry you didn't bother adding that edit, I was very "wut?" There. :)

It's really kind of baffling just how bonkers the right wing has gone over transgender issues. I mean, not really baffling - you pick a random scapegoat and hammer away, that's how authoritarianism works. But why transgender? So weird. I guess it's a bit easier because of how humans often get excessively wound up about sexuality, just look at basically every religion ever.

I worked for a Microsoft studio for a while that took forever to allow Copilot to be used internally, and they were all Microsoft. It was very frustrating, especially given that permission was finally granted for Copilot use just a matter of weeks before the whole studio got abruptly shut down anyway.

Corporate bureaucracy. Weird and dumb.

Well, open weight is not open source. There's a lot of black box still left in those models.

It's still far more open to investigation and analysis than the likes of ChatGPT, though. Lots of work has been done to allow some degree of investigation into how the "brains" of an LLM work and in the case of Deepseek you can actually apply those techniques to the model you know you're using.

There are different levels of trust one can apply. In the case of Deepseek you can run the model on your very own hardware with no external connection to China at all. You can abliterate and fine-tune the model's weights yourself. You can observe all of its reasoning text as it works.

So I think I'd trust Deepseek over the likes of OpenAI, who insist you send all your data to them and be happy with whatever they choose to send back to you.

Remember that it's congress that sets the budget.

And also remember who's up for reelection in 16 days.

So this:

between idiots believing AI is the devil and idiots believing AI is their new lord and savior

wasn't mud-slinging, in your opinion? Calling someone an idiot isn't an attack?

Maybe because when they actually try them out they're discovering that AI coding agents are pretty good?

And you're here standing in between the two sides, casting mud in both directions and thinking you're not getting any mud on yourself in the process?