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.

Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists, especially those who support or defend acts of repression by such regimes, their allies, or deny the occurrence of the events thereof. More specifically, the term has been applied to those who express support for one-party Marxist–Leninist socialist republics, whether contemporary or historical. It is commonly used by anti-authoritarian leftists, anarchists, libertarian socialists, left communists, social democrats, democratic socialists, and reformists to criticise Leninism, although the term has seen increasing use by liberal and right‐wing factions as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie

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.

Ah yes. The party of Satan, who would forcefully drag children out of their homes to send them to an unkown place. Typical satanic dem behaviour. … Oh no, wait. /s

This is possible and much easier than with the people who usually do the actual work that makes a company sucessfull.

For example, this chinese company has done it and performs very well: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/ai-ceo-artificial-intelligence-b2302091.html

“Google stands for free and open internet”

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

Aged like milk.

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?

Whithout a clear definition of intelligence, such a discussion is somewhat pointless. The closest thing I would use to describe artificial “intelligence” is: Mimicking human/natural thought and decision processes, without the necessity of being identical.

Secondly, regarding your first paragraph:
Humans excel at providing wrong information. Sometimes they are right. In that regard there are similarities between an LLM and a human.

By the way: LLMs are part of the field of AI. But AI consists of a plethora of methods and algorithms, where LLMs are just a tiny fraction that is currently very popular.

It is AI.

Crowdstrike already showed very impressively the danger of monopolies.

They will run out of business very quick if they allow it!

I wouldn’t be so naive. Even applications advertised as “secure” may be subject to surveillance laws of various nations. Or even just plainly lying for other malicious reasons while keeping it “hidden”.

And any file can be brute forced open given enough processing power or enough tech

Which, depending on the encryption and password, may take more time than the age of the universe. Even with quantum computers, afaik. There are already a bunch of new encryption technologies undergoing standardization that are also not vulnerable to quantum computers.