abfarid

It's a fork of Greek temple.

Biggus Dickus is next in line.

They meant to say "Control or* Backspace is Space", right? Right?!

While the post is clearly a shitpost, and the arguments in their provided form are not entirely valid, they could be altered to be valid.

Purpose-built devices will always have advantages over generic "do everything" devices. A modern smartphone can do everything, but you still have MP3/FLAC players, DSLR cameras, calculators, etc. Similarly, a PC can do everything, but there are still TV sticks, gaming consoles, tablets, etc.

PC can't be as low-friction as a console for gaming. To start playing all you need to do is pick up the controller, press the Home button, TV comes on and you're back where you left off. All the games in the store are 100% compatible with 0 settings manipulations.

Now, you could build a PC for the sole purpose of playing games on it, and come fairly close to the experience. But you're gonna spend more and put a lot of effort into it.
Some issues you might encounter:

• picking and installing the right OS
• hardware/software compatibility
• controller support
• seamless sleep/wake
• lack of HDMI CEC protocol to control the TV

Whereas a console is a plug-and-play tailored experience that guarantees all of the above to not be an issue.

TL;DR: You can't just plug your PC to a TV and expect the same result as playing on a console. It will take much more work to get there.

PipeWire is a server and user space API to deal with multimedia pipelines. This includes:

• Making available sources of video (such as from a capture devices or application provided streams) and multiplexing this with clients.
• Accessing sources of video for consumption.
• Generating graphs for audio and video processing.

Nodes in the graph can be implemented as separate processes, communicating with sockets and exchanging multimedia content using fd passing.

There is no spoon.

Wtf are jere-...

Yeah, ok, thanks.

I'm sorry, wtf is "shirts vs skins"?

I'm not redefining anything, I'm just pointing out that intelligence is not as narrow as most people assume, it's a broad term that encompasses various gradations. It doesn't need to be complex or human-like to qualify as intelligence.

A single if statement arguably isn't intelligence, sure, but how many if statements is? Because at some point you can write a complex enough sequence of if statements that will exhibit intelligence. As I was saying in my other comments, where do we draw this line in the sand? If we use the definition from the link, which is:

The highest faculty of the mind, capacity for comprehending general truths.

Then 99% of animal species would not qualify as intelligent.

You may rightfully argue that term AI is too broad and that we could narrow it down to mean specifically "human-like" AI, but the truth is, that at this point, in computer science AI already refers to a wide range of systems, from basic decision-making algorithms to complex models like GPTs or neural networks.

My whole point is less about redefining intelligence and more about recognizing its spectrum, both in nature and in machines. But I don't expect for everybody to agree, even the expert in the fields don't.

Opponent players in games have been labeled AI for decades, so yeah, software engineers have been producing AI for a while. If a computer can play a game of chess against you, it has intelligence, a very narrowly scoped intelligence, which is artificial, but intelligence nonetheless.

I would put it differently. Sometimes words have two meanings, for example a layman's understanding of it and a specialist's understanding of the same word, which might mean something adjacent, but still different. For instance, the word "theory" in everyday language often means a guess or speculation, while in science, a "theory" is a well-substantiated explanation based on evidence.

Similarly, when a cognitive scientist talks about "intelligence", they might be referring to something quite different from what a layperson understands by the term.