Technology
News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.
What doesn't fit here?
The core of the story has to be technology focused.
- If article mentions "AI" in a sentence and then talks about business economics that doesn't make it tech news.
- Gaming is too many layers removed from technology. There are many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Transporation is too many layers removed from technology. EVs while use many cool technologies have many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Entertainment is too many layers removed from technology. While sometimes it can fit here, business or cultural aspects of it are a better fit for dedicated communities.
- Cybersecurity. While it heavily focuses on technology, most of the time it's too technical for most people who are not already invested in it. Should be posted in a dedicated communities unless it has broader connection to other tech areas.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
The title and the article don’t match, like…..at all. The article states that all the biggest companies absolutely can state and show how AI is extremely useful to them.
They did not say what the biggest companies use the AI for.
Article said companies in the server supply chain are happy, and that executives are happy, and some companies not using LLMs have actual use cases, but that's it.
It didn’t say anything about companies in the “server supply chain” being happy. It also said……well not much really. Nothing that could support the title.
Are you talking about this line?
Are you saying that you don't know what these companies use AI for?
No. What I'm asking is if this is the line you were referring to. I wasn't sure. If it is, these companies have a vested interest in "extolling AI's benefits". But if you're not talking about this line, I don't want to jump to conclusions. That's why I asked.
I'm referring to the fact that they specifically exclude the biggest companies because they know they can state and show what they use AI for and how it benefits them.
Did they put that information in their filings? Because that was the analysis. I don't know if they did or didn't. If they did, then your assertion would be correct. If they didn't though, it would not be correct.