First thing is to separate out the term AI from LLM's.

AI as a term encompasses many different technologies, some going back decades, a lot of which is used all over the place.
What we're hearing a lot about right now are LLM's and the surrounding ecosystem.

To answer the question though, yes, they can be used to produce output that fits a use case.
Whether or not it's the best tool for the job is subjective, even in the cases where it's technically viable.

There is a lot of bias and a lot of arguments for both sides.

You'd probably be best served by reading around a bit and figuring out how you feel about it.

You're unlikely to get an unbiased discussion from a single source, especially here.
I'm not excluding myself , I'm bias AF.

The technology is interesting, the industrial implementation is an environmental and societal catastrophe.

You mean to say that people on this site are claiming that individuals with publicly stated agendas and goals might possibly use the fiscal and/or reputational benefits of the organisations they control to aid in the furthering of whatever goals/agendas they may have?

Point me in their direction, i shall have words...big ones...like wherewithal ...or extrapolation....prestidigitation...etc.

Clearly these people are buttering their toast with a teaspoon, seems like an incredible leap to me and i bet they couldn't even provide a single example of this happening in the modern day.....illogical plebeians.

Edit : more salt that I'd expect for zero actual counterpoints

Is there copyright involved in prostitution?

Plex is a solid meh/10 back end wise, provided you have the knowledge to run the docker container it's not that bad.

Running it standalone is potentially effort.

My main issue with plex is it's transition into enshittification as a service.

Lacks specificity, but the general sentiment is understood

TL;DR;

They have an effective monopoly and have repeatedly shown they will use it to serve their needs.

One concrete way is the level of control that google has over the inner workings on the rendering engine giving it significant control over web standards.

A real life example fo this is the controversy around the JPEG-XL format, google decides to drop support for it, doing so removes support for every single browser based on the rendering engine in chromium (eventually).

Now, other browsers ( firefox for example) have to decide if it's worth it to add in and maintain support for a format that will only work in their rendering engine.

Sounds like a win right? now firefox has a feature that chrome doesn't.

Now, developers/businesses have a choice.

• A: Add/Maintain/Test features that use the JPEG-XL format exclusively, this feature is only available to the Y% of people not using a chromium based browser.
• B: Use some other format that is supported in chrome (and other browser).
• C: Do A with B as a fail-over, adding additional cost to development/maintenance and testing.

In almost all circumstances, B is the fiscally responsible option, which means that google has effective control over web standards and their implementation.

A non rendering engine example is ad-blockers, google decides there are underlying security issues with how some integrations with the web browser works, this "just so happens" to break how almost all decent adblocking is done at a browser level.

They go ahead and create an updated version of the specification that describes how this interaction works, implement this upstream and suddenly all chromium based browsers now can't use the most effective adblockers.

Technically the downstream browsers could do some shenanigans to keep the ability to block ads effectively , but the technical and monetary barriers to such an endeavour are so high it is absolutely not worth it.

There is more technical nuance to this story, the security issues are real in V2 but the need to break adblockers in process of fixing these issues is debatable.

Indeed, i hadn't considered that.

Interesting, thank you for taking the time to write all of that up.

Do you have any information on how easy the resumption of puberty is after that sort of delay?

It never occurred to me that this was possible and I'm interested in how it might work.

Labels aside, the only thing that post contains is a personal opinion, a personal anecdote and then an unspecific reference to something that may or may not exist.

Calling that an argument is a very generous interpretation.

I mean, yes? That's a good summation.

The part where you get to call something "open source" by OSI standards (which I'm pretty sure is the accepted standard set) but only if you adhere to those standards.

Don't want to adhere, no problem, but nobody who does accept that standard will agree with you if you try and assign that label to something that doesn't adhere, because that's how commonly accepted standards work, socially.

Want to make an "open source 2 : electric boogaloo" licence , still no problem.

Want to try and get the existing open source standards changed, still good, difficult, but doable.

Relevant to this discussion, trying to convince people that someone claiming something doesn't adhere to the current, socially accepted open source standards, when anybody can go look those standards up and check, is the longest of shots.

To address the bible example, plenty of variations exist, with smaller or larger deviations from each other, and they each have their own set of believers, some are even compatible with each other.

Much like the "true" ^1^ open source licences and the other, "closely related, but not quite legit" ^2^ variations.

^1^ As defined by the existing, community accepted standards set forth by the OSI

^2^ Any other set of standards that isn't compatible with ^1^

edit: clarified that last sentence, it was borderline unparseable

Got to 3, noped out.

Real good times.