In a nutshell he says that Linux is a technology project, where technology comes first. If LLMs help to improve the technology then it’s fair game. If not, then of course not.

He also says something about Linux not being a place for ‘social warriors’, which is kind of ironic, given that Linux is basically a big ‘fuck you’ against corporations and closed source, i.e., a scoial statement. Given how much beef he famously had with Nvidia, this is somewhat unexpected.

But I interpret it as coming from a place of seeing LLMs really just as a new tool and nothing more. In an interview a couple of years back, Linus also said pretty much that. He grew up with basic tools, had to create new software tools to make him more productive and improve the quality of his work. He saw LLMs just as another tool that can aid in development. I suppose this hasn’t changed.

Given, that most people usually don’t program in assembler anymore, but use high level programming languages like C++, which simplifies the process of coding enormously, or even scripting languages like Python, which present another level of abstraction and simplification, LLMs do appear somewhat like a next step in this evolution.
Issue is, you have deterministic and formal guarantees in programming languages, whereas LLMs do not. This is by far not the only issue of course, as others in this thread have also noted.

I wonder whether he uses LLMs in his daily work. Might change his perspective a bit.

Things to do when bored: arguing about taste.

Strafanzeige erstatten

Und wie ist das im Vergleich zu Autos?

*pervert glasses

So there are no exemptions in case of necessary medical devices?

I disagree. I love cooking with my wife, because we distribute the tasks and I enjoy her company. Those of you, who have issues with stuff like that might need to work on your cooperation skills.

Offsetting the asshole footprint to deceive people is considered a bad action.

Oh nein, warub sollte der Staat auch etwas tun, was nachweislich den Menschen langfristig etwas Gutes tun könnte? Das ist ja fast so wie andere gesundheitlich schädliche Stoffe zu besteuern oder zu verbieten. So wie bei Tabakwaren. Unerhörte Bevormundung durch den Staat! /i

Ironisch, dass der Artikel auf einer Website erscheint, bei der man Tracking zustimmen muss, um den Artikel lesen zu können.

Asshole ratio: 0 % = best person in the world.
100 % = worst person in the world.

Computed as an average of bad “actions” with respect to all actions.

Good and bad evaluated with respect to proven positive impact on people’s lifes and the planet.

I noticed it helps a little to use scissors.

Ist der angegebene Schaden denn der Einkaufspreis für Händler oder der Endverbraucherpreis? Falls ersteres, kommen da natürlich noch die anderen Kosten wie Personal, Transport, Lagerung und Profitmarge mit rein.

you can find the proof for yourself. do a little research on anthropology

You have made a bold claim. Therefore, it would be beneficial to support it. Otherwise it’s just hot air.

also see the high prevalence of cheating across romantic relationships

I suppose there is also a high prevalence of loyal behaviour across romantic relationships. But even if not, you are making to mistakes here imo:

1. Prevalence of something does not necessarily constitute “natural” behaviour. Depending on the specific numbers of this prevalence and how specifically it is defined. Especially, given that many things in biology are of rather statistical nature.
2. You are using that as an argument to justify moral behaviour. Even if it were true (which you refused to provide proof for so far), just because something is natural, it is not necessarily “good”. See also: Appeal to nature.
   (Edit: to avoid misconceptions: I am referring to your previous comment where you basically said “duh, ofc they are cheating, it is natural. Also: monogamy is a curse by evil rich people”. I am not saying that anyone implies moral superiority of monogamy over polygamy or the other way around.)

or maybe you prefer to ignore that because its inconvenient to your position

No, to the contrary. I am always open for good and factually based arguments. It’s never wrong to correct one’s stance given better information. So, feel invited to share your knowledge.

just because you personally are fine with your personal monogamous situation doesnt mean that humans are naturally monogamous

Correct. And my argument was based on rather anectodal evidence. However, given that I find that not only in my relationship, but also in others, suggests that humans are possibly not as easy to shove into a single drawer with regard to monogamy. But I didn’t do the deep dive and do not have the numbers. However, since I do not experience this as a rarity, this provides ground for contradicting your claim.

hell your partner might not really be ok with it. for all you know they might just be keeping up appearances

Given that I literally talked with my partner about the possibility of opening up our relationship in case they feel the need to, this would be a really unnecessary and odd thing to do. ;)

theres plenty of evidence to support that we arent monogamous

Feel free to share this evidence, I am interested. :)

but to be honest youre not worth trying to convince

I wonder whether this is your default reaction to people who challenge your opinions and claims. If you allow, I suggest thinking about that in case you’re looking for civil and constructive discussions.

maybe you could read up on the history of marriage to see what i mean. monogamous marriage exists primarily to handle the inheritance of wealth, which is something that really only matters to rich people who have something worth inheriting

Marriage did have that as primary use a long time ago, yes. But times have changed, as have the meanings around marriage. Given how marriage has been more of a rather formal institution back then, this is, imo, only a weak indicator for true monogamy or true polygamy. One could be married and be either of those. As it is the case today as well. Furthermore, nowadays, you also do not need to be married to manage inheritance. So while it has often been the case back then, it isn’t today.

you still cant have a marriage between more than 2 people, or marry more than one person, let alone more complex arrangements

According to a brief read of Wikipedia, there are 58 countries where you can have polygamous marriages. Link

I think it is important to make a distinction here, because it seems you are partly mixing up forms of marriage with the innate individual preference for monogamous or polygamous relationships. But the form of marriage does not necessarily tell about this preference. So just because someone has a monogamous relationship, e.g., in form of a marriage, doesn’t mean they really monogamous. Same thing with polygamy: people can be unhappy in polygamous constellations because they are actually monogamous.

in most places thats explicitly illegal. so yeah none of us really have a say

That is true and unfortunate and hopefully we, as humans worldwide, will advance to become more open to the legal status of polygamous relationships. In many places, we’re making progress on that front. Moreover, although you can not legally marry more than one person in most countries, a lot of countries still tolerate polygamous relationships and do not prosecute them.
But again, we are mixing things here.

And we haven’t even put a distinction between sexual and romantic preferences into the equation yet.

deleted by creator

Tschuldigom

humans, contrary to popular belief, are not monogamous

Please support this statement with proof.

As far as I’m informed this isn’t true. Or let’s say, such preferences and “imprinted behaviours” are all over the place. Some are monogamous, some are not.

are thus a curse that only serve to hurt us

I don’t see how I should be hurt by being with my wonderful spouse for over 10 years. I don’t even want anyone else. I wouldn’t even be able to build such a strong and deep bond with anyone else. It takes a lot of time and effort to cater it. Even if I wanted to (which I don’t), there wouldn’t be enough time for anyone else to get to a similar level. So in this case, this is not hurting in any way. To the contrary, it is the optimal constellation for a relationship in my case.

There are plenty of people who are like this and are happy with it. And of course, there are also people who are not. But I don’t think either alone is “our nature”. We, as humans, are both and have a whole spectrum behind it.

as usual all of this really only benefits rich people

Please elaborate, because I do not see how happy monogamous couples benefit the rich and are therefore a standard that was “forced upon us”.

No one forced me. And I began being open for any kind of sexual and romantic preferences, including types of relationships, early on. Never really felt pressured into one or the other. I chose this, voluntarily.

Also, fuck lawns. :)

It’s nice that two dead friends are watching my back to shield me from evil ghosts.

Lemmy Lassmich gut, nix Lases nötig.

UND