More people who kiss the toes of dictators. Those who ignore the atrocities of Stalin and similarly despicable figures, "tankie" as in the tanks used to silence civilian protests
Anarchists are far left, but they would be very insulted if you called them tankies (their whole thing is anti-authoritarianism!)
People who love authoritarianism and intentionally skip over their atrocities, the term "tankie" refers to how the military (tanks) were used to crush the rebellions of many authoritarian regimes, notably, the Hungarian uprising in 1956 being crushed by the Warsaw Pact and the Tianamen square massacre in 1989 by the PRC.
It's usually used to refer to supporters of the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, etc. who deny all the bad, inhuman things about those states.
If you define a stupid question as one where discussion is difficult or even impossible, then no, this is not a stupid question. Questions are meant to provoke debate and communication of differing ideas, and this is exactly what is happening now.
A true stupid question would be like asking if guns can kill people. Of course guns kill people, there is no discussion about this. A better question could be how we should regulate guns and ways to avoid placing them in the wrong hands.
The 11th of November is Remembrance day (the whole minute of silence on the 11th minute, hour, day, and month thing was a big thing at my old school)
11/11 is also a big holiday in East Asia, Pocky Day in Japan, Peppero Day in Korea (both because of the resemblance to the tasty stick biscuits), and Singles Day in China (the 1s represent unmarried individuals), all three of which are huge shopping days for Asian malls (similar to Black Friday, but combined with the hyper consumerism of the Asian markets)
Definitely in favour of abandoning the celebration of some old monarch's birthday.
Fair enough. Good luck then!
It's not that "AI" is incorrect, more that it's way too broad. It's like how "leftism" is used to group social democracies, totalitarian dictatorships, and anarchism together, even though they are vastly different ideologies. For an example that is not based on politics, it's like how you need more information than just "fiction" and "non-fiction" to pick a book to read.
Good point on the cost of running a local model, but more efficient models exist that can run on memory capacities more typical for regular people (think 8-16GB of RAM). It doesn't help that all the memory has been bought out for the data centres...
It's 2160x2160, so less than 4K (which is 3840x2160) horizontally, since it's a different aspect ratio but it's still more pixels. About 8 million for a standard 4K display, while it's 9 million for the Frame. Even streaming games on such a high resolution display is performance intensive, plus you have the controller + eye tracking
VR headsets effectively need to run two 4K displays, one for each eye, and you have all the processing for controller tracking too. You also have eye tracking, they're doing the whole foveated streaming thing everybody has been gushing over about (it's really cool tech!). The mobile chip they used is nothing special, it's a Snapdragon 8 Gen 3, a 3 year old smartphone processor (certainly powerful enough to run lighter PC games, but nothing more than that. It's kind of insane that a phone can even do that nowadays!)
To separate the weeds from the worms, I would avoid the term "AI" since it has devolved into a buzzword that's stuck on everything.
I think that if somebody has made a useful open-source project using LLMs, they shouldn't be criticised solely for that reason. If the code produced is ass and isn't reviewed, is hard to contribute to, and there is negligence, that would be a valid criticism. I also despise the use of the privacy nightmare of commercial LLMs (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, etc.). If are to use LLMs, please use a local model. For you, your project, and your wallet's sake. That's my position on LLMs.
I trust that you are doing your due diligence in keeping your code relatively clean, and hope that your project will succeed! I personally do not use LLMs for my projects, they do not fit my usecase, probably not for most people actually. But I can see the value of having an LLM do menial tasks, as long as the code is properly reviewed and checked.
Generative models belong in the deepest circle in hell. They steal the work of creatives, are awful in the trifecta of morality, ethics, and legality, and are mainly used by scam artists (see: deepfakes) and misinformation campaigns. Nobody should use these, even if it's a local model.
Also, a bit off-topic, but you might have heard of all the "AI has solved (big problem in science)" or "AI proved (big maths thing)" headlines, but note that these are NOT your LLMs, and certainly not any kind of generative model. They use predictive models (sometimes the papers mention "deep learning" too) that are trained on a specific set of data to do a specific task, and most of the actual science and maths is done by humans. These models certainly won't replace scientists or mathematicians, like the Big Tech companies want you to believe, but they are a valuable tool when it comes to doing menial tasks repeatedly. That's what computers are best at, after all!
I feel like we should better differentiate between LLMs (the ones that literally tell you to eat rocks), generative models (the ones that are stealing the work of creatives without permission), and the ones that are actually used for neat science stuff, where they are trained on a specific set of data and are doing a specific set of tasks repeatedly in a controlled environment, rather than training on the entire internet and then some and trying to do everything!
I think we should label them as large language models, generative models, and predictive models (maybe? Or maybe "targeted predictive models"?). It's important to emphasise that all of these, even the useful ones, are not intelligent, they do not understand what they are doing. They are just models of data that do thing go in, thing go out.
Honestly the actual hardware is very competent for the price, and a lot of the technologies Valve is showing off (foveated streaming, Windows PC games on ARM Linux VR, etc.) are awesome!
It's more how people are comparing the price to the heavily subsidised Meta doodad that is less open, has similar or worse specs (especially when it comes to streaming it seems), and is owned by Meta (selling your eyeballs to advertisers is not something I would like to do personally)