Apart from games, where this can also be used for more capabable and behaviourally more “interesting” NPCs (including computer opponents or teammates), the used techniques can be transferred to robotics. Quite a cool architecture.

“Kill switch” is a bit dramatic. It’s an on or off toggle. Would be funny though to call every toggle a kill switch. “Yeah, using the kill switch on GPU acceleration may help with rendering on some systems.”

“Use the kill switch for preventing Firefox of starting a new session without restoring the old tabs.”

“Kill all of your browser data upon exiting Firefox by enabling the kill switch.”

“Make Firefox your default browser by enabling the ‘set as default browser kill switch’.”

Extended to other UI interaction classes: “You don’t like English? Kill it by using the battle royale language selector to choose only the one language you like.”

I do as long as it stays open source.

TIL, people consider Mozilla and Firefox a giant.

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/

Yes. But we will have to see whether it’s opt-in or opt-out. This can make quite a significant difference.

The logic behind the voice controls sounds pretty questionable, but it’s supposedly backed by data showing that users spend billions of minutes talking in Microsoft Team meetings, according to Mehdi — so they’re already used to talking on the computer, right?

Do they really reason like this? Oh my. That’s stupid. And here I was thinking Microsoft employs clever people.

This is in beta, not available for all users and you can also disable it easily: https://support.ecosia.org/article/994-ai-overviews

As far as I know they are using Bing. They’ve started building their own search index last year in a partnership with Qwant.

It find it unfortunate that you are unwilling to continue this discussion. I can only recommend to you to read more deeply about this topic in order to form a well founded and critical opinion, before judging things you do not seem to comprehend sufficiently.

Let me know as soon as you’d like to continue this matter. I am always open for a good discussion and good arguments.

(I am not sorry for “necroing”, sometimes I’m just not in the mood and/or don’t have the time to reply to various comments. But that’s the beauty of discussion platforms: it’s always possible to pick it up at a later time.)

Well, in that case I wonder why you were criticising the field of AI. Doesn’t seem to be substantiated.

Is it though? By which definition?

What is “thinking critically about thoughts”?
And what is an “independent thought”? Aren’t our brains not just reacting to sensory inputs and dictated by the way our brains are wired?

Maybe we should go even further and clarify what a “thought” even is.

Are animals, who lack the higher cognitive functions, that humans have, therefore not “intelligent”? Are mentally impaired people no longer to be considered “intelligent”? If so, where is the line to be drawn? What are the specific definitions and criteria to correctly distinguish intelligence from non- or pseudo-intelligence?

Not my wording, but the one from the paper I have linked.

“Google stands for free and open internet”

https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/keep-internet-free-and-open/

Aged like milk.

/j: joke
/s: sarcasm
/i: irony

Easy:
You take GPU. And then you put GPU.
Understood? /j

Aren’t they already doing that?

That’s a complicated way of saying that Microsoft recommends switching to Linux. /j

I don’t care about votes. I just hope that people start to comprehend this field a tiny bit better .

But yes. Exactly in the use of “Artificial Intelligence”.

Artificial Intelligence is a wide field, consisting of a plethora of methods. LLMs like ChatGPT are part of this wide field, as per definition how researchers are describing the field.

The “intelligence” part is an issue though if taken literal, since we have no clear definition of what “intelligence” even is. Neither for human / natural intelligence, nor for artificial. But that’s how the field was labled. We have created a category for a bunch of methods, models and algorithms and sticked “AI” onto it. Therefore I stand by what I have said before:

It is AI.

Due to the lack of a clear definition for “intelligence” I would coarsely outline AI as: mimicking natural thinking, problem solving and decision processes without necessarily being identical. (This makes it difficult to distinguish it from plain calculators though, so a better definition is required.) So if we have a model that is able to distinguish cat pictures from non-cat pictures, that’s AI. And if we have “autocorrect on steroids” (credit to Dirk Hohndel) like ChatGPT, that matches the text comprehension skills of 15 year olds (just an example), then this too is AI.

Have you tried Ecosia?