You’re trying to paint windows in a positive light when Microsoft is desperately trying to spy on us and force more advertising on us even though we really don’t want it, and the only reason they can do that is because they have a monopoly. So yeah, it really is that awful.

And if we want to do side by side comparisons of the available software packages, most things that you would need for your average office setup are free and come by default on your major Linux distros. On Windows, you have to install them manually, and the default options are mainly commercial. So you’re paying more and possibly getting something worse, depending on your personal preferences about each software package and its alternative. That’s pretty bad, my friend. Windows is competing with free and losing, but they have inertia and a monopoly.

You should absolutely see something wrong. This is solving a problem that doesn’t exist, which means it’s actually trying to solve a different “problem”, namely that minorities get to vote.

Actually it’s a very very brief summary of some philosophical arguments that happened between the 1950s and the 1980s. If you’re interested in the topic, you could go read about them.

You might consider reading Turing or Searle. They did a great job of addressing the concerns you’re trying to raise here. And rebutting the obvious ones, too.

Anyway, you’ve just shifted the definitional question from “AI” to “sentience”. Not only might that be unreasonable, because perhaps a thing can be intelligent without being sentient, it’s also no closer to a solid answer to the original issue.

Mind your pronouns, my dear. “We” don’t do that shit because we know better.

Some time after I went OpenBSD and then FreeBSD nerd.

It already is happening. Source: a person getting a visa now-ish.

Actually they ask for the last five years, deleted or not.

There is no rule against deleting accounts, my friend.

That is a fucking terrible idea. If they later find it, they’ll lock you up and maybe later throw you out. The financial risk makes no sense.

They say they will find those “with AI”. And they will, for true or for false, because they only want another weapon to use against the “undesirables”.

Wait a second. Are you saying we can hack them? This is wonderful.

Right, listen to that manosophere and you can commit some R or SA … Is that what you mean by “get laid”?

That’s what they’re banking on, but we know that eventually they will f*** it up and lose everyone.

The article is also full of bullshit and it gets basic history wrong. The agreement was never made, but to the extent it exists anyway, it was never supposed to be about a monopoly that’s destroying shit. Once upon a time, not even very long ago, there were competing search engines.

I know tech writers want to write stories that sound fancy, but if they don’t know the facts and the history then they need to find someone to proofread their work more carefully.

Well no, it’s not, because they have multiple monopolies. So we should blame them and blame government for not stopping them.

Obviously the situations are different. We all know that. The point is that it’s hypocritical of a company to say hey, let’s ask our employees to do more by throwing AI at them, and then getting pissed off when potential employees do the same thing.

Although I think it’s more funny than anything else. The company found out that people are gaming the system, which means they have a really shitty system, and rather than change how they interview people or what types of questions they ask, they’re just acting obstinate.

I think we’ve seen enough changes in social media platforms over the past few decades to say that your claim is true until it’s not. As payments to content creators fall, and as garbage postings increase, the actual value to the average user of the site is clearly decreasing. So we’ll see how long YouTube is relevant.

So you’re saying that other options do exist but some companies don’t want to use them because Microsoft is very popular, which is kind of a circular thing, and I understand, but it’s a sign of laziness, not quality.

I have to quibble with you, because you used the term “AI” instead of actually specifying what technology would make sense.

As we have seen in the last 2 years, people who speak in general terms on this topic are almost always selling us snake oil. If they had a specific model or computer program that they thought was going to be useful because it fit a specific need in a certain way, they would have said that, but they didn’t.