• 0 Posts
  • 17 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle


  • Underlying kernel aside, I think that the Steamdeck’s SteamOS is an excellent example of how “easy to use” != “smaller feature-set”. I’ve heard countless times from apple dudes that the reason that their stuff allegedly “just works” is because of the lack of some functionally that if present would overwhelm the user. You know, as if ios and android don’t share fundamentally the same user interface principles. But they do have a point, a green user can be overwhelmed when presented with a huge feature set all at once. Yet, despite SteamOS literally having a full-blown desktop environment, the UI frankly is way less confusing than my Xbox. It just goes to show that it’s not about the number of features, it’s about how they’re presented. Power users don’t mind digging into a (well designed) settings menu to enable some advanced functionality, and keeping those advanced features and settings (with reasonable defaults) hidden around the corner behind an unlocked door helps the newbie get started with confidence.









  • This is pretty much my take. For tech newbies that essentially only need a browser, linux mint is great. On the other extreme, if you want to tinker, get your hands dirty, then you probably already know what distro you want.

    It’s toughest for the people in between who need some more advanced os functionality or need programs that aren’t natively supported, but otherwise don’t want to know more about their os than they have to. Not because Linux doesn’t have that advanced functionality (and more!) or because there aren’t alternatives and workarounds for those programs, but because of the learning curve.

    For someone already tech illiterate, the learning curve is almost a moot point. For the tinkerer, it’s practically a feature. But for the people in between, it can a real obstacle.



  • That’s kind of a given though. It’s a large language model, so of course its “understanding” can only be in terms of language. In a way, words are its only sense (input), and only way to interact with the world (output). The mechanism isn’t really important, imo, since we could reduce our own understanding to chemical reactions.

    Homo sapiens have many more dimensions of awareness, dozens maybe including sight, hearing, time, pressure, acceleration, etc., and we’ve been collecting data from them all 24/7 since embryo, plus instinct (pre-baked weights) from millions of years of evolution. We know that people born without a sense, let’s say vision cannot conceptualize visually, even when their sight is restored for a time. I remember reading awhile back that a person born blind had their vision fixed, but they didn’t know what “pointy” looked like. They couldn’t know. Do they have a lower quality understanding of a word?

    My point being, I don’t think it’s fair to objectively compare understanding between a person and a model without a testable definition of that word. Imo, and feel free to disagree, understanding is no different than merely knowing, it’s just implied that the knowledge is deeper, across multiple dimensions of awareness, including subconscious awareness of our own hormones.