Yeah, I get that, but that’s also true of Steam Link and Steam’s general streaming solution (which I presume is what this is using) and it’s trivial to get a different window to show up or even to get to the desktop from the in-game streaming, particularly if you have a non-Steam app in your library.
So yeah, it’s gonna be on demand recordings from me… assuming the quality holds up (Nvidia’s kinda sucks). Otherwise that’s what OBS is for.
Well, that was MS’s argument and I don’t think it flies there either.
On a console it’s fine, it’s only ever gonna catch a game. On the Steam Deck as well, same deal.
For a desktop PC that you also use for work and media and other stuff… yeah, I want to be extra sure that if I alt-tab from a game to quickly answer some work email that’s not going to accidentally be recorded anywhere, even locally. Like Recall, I can see people who would not mind that as long as the data stays in their computer, I myself like knowing that I don’t accidentally leave exposed files with potentially sensitive information laying around without my knowledge.
I mean, it’s fine, it just means turning the feature off. I don’t use the equivalent feature from Nvidia for the same reasons. I still think it’s funny that MS got (rightfully) put on blast for basically doing this and then Apple and Valve both announced similar features immediately afterwards. It’s made for some awkward mental gymnastics on the Internet recently.
Hah. So if you turn the background recording on it keeps a browsable timeline with metadata about which modes you were playing, presumably based on your rich presence data?
How freaked out do you think everyone at Valve was this past month watching Microsoft’s Recall feature get ripped to shreds?
All joking aside, I do not trust background recording on PC. I’ve seen how easy it is to bypass Steam Link’s restritions on streaming your desktop, I guarantee that some of these clips would end up with something I don’t want in them. I do think metadata annotation on long manual recordings is potentially interesting, but it IS creepy.
“Under the age of 30”, huh?
Alright, nerds, just so we’re clear, that was more than 15 years ago. Assuming this is current, which it probably isn’t, that “53yo” dad was in his late 30s at the time, could very much have been posting about it when it happened. Given the current average age for having kids, “bumblebeebats” was probably wearing diapers by the time the Internet got to the point of entirely abstracting it to shapes. There is a longer period of time between loss.jpg and now than between the first rickroll and loss.jpg.
If it makes you feel any better, all of this is hurting me just as bad as it’s hurting you.
But that’s my problem. You guys are here trying to convince somebody who isn’t listening that you’re better than AI at doing a thing AI doesn’t do in the first place.
You’re implicitly accepting that eventually AI will be better than you once it gets “good enough”. May as well jump in ahead of the curve, right?
Only no, that’s not how it’s likely to go. It’s not what it does or how it works. Everybody is arguing about the sci-fi version of this stuff and making wrong decisions as a result, both critics and advocates. It’s super frustrating. We need a lot more unbiased education and a lot less argumentative nonsense on all sides.
Well, yeah, but that’s all bullshit.
So why would you buy into it when presenting a rebuttal?
I am interested in pointing out that the likely response machine getting the answers to test questions right is not a particularly surprising outcome. That’s interesting.
I’m interested in which of the likely responses the machine struggles with and when it stops struggling and what the amount of data and processing associated to each are. That’s interesting.
It’s interesting that language emerges from the math at, all, let alone how plausible the output is in most situations. That’s more than interesting.
But if your response to the obvious misrepresentation that a chatbot is a person of ANY level of intelligence is to point out that it’s dumb you’ve already accepted the premise. You’re now part of the bullshit. That’s counterproductive. And worse, uninteresting and outright boring.
I am excited about the ways different ML applications can help with automation or as part of a workflow. I think explaining to gullible executives how that would actually work (spoilers, it’s not by replacing workers with chatbots) is very relevant. But this and a lot of the online criticism is not doing that, it’s buying into the incorrect premise that the only reason that’s not how it works is because the AI is too dumb and it’ll be fine when it’s smarter, when that’s unlikely to be the case. Making a better screwdriver won’t turn it into a machete. This is entirely the wrong conversation to be having.
I am endlessly frustrated by people “testing” chatbots and posting the results like they’re some revelation.
We know what’s happening here. It’s not a mystery. This weird antropomorphization is prevalent on both advocates and critics of the tech. Both seem to be convinced that they’re dealing with a person.
This is the equivalent of asking a Google search to write a critical essay on A Confederacy of Dunces and being surprised when it spits search results.
Chatbots aren’t useless, they are actually pretty good at proposing likely responses on fuzzy prompts. They’re decent at telling you what an old movie may be based on some details of the plot, sometimes they can identify why a joke you lack cultural context to understand is supposed to be funny… that type of thing. They can take a piece of text and provide another piece of text that is likely to have a relationship with it.
It is not a thinking machine. It is not a person. It’s not a search engine, for that matter, or a calculator. It’s infuriating to see everybody arguing about how good it is at being what it’s not. Both parties are buying into a premise we already know to be incorrect.
Aw, you guys are gonna make me answer this seriously, aren’t you?
No, it’s not the Jewish part that I don’t get. I have been around enough to understand that Wilson is implying that she has some (presumably) Ashkenazi and some Irish ancestry, and I am self-aware enough to understand that she would sound insane if she put it that way.
The fact that she’s calling it out as a shorthand for common cultural ground is the part that is strange, let alone the persistent hangup with ancestry and the weird assumption that culture is somehow genetic. I was just trying to break it down gently by being facetious about it.
It’s weird, it’s highly specific to American culture, and yes, I do get the very deep roots in colonialism that lead to this outcome. It’s just weird to me that’s where it landed and how often Americans seem to think it’s universal when it’s actually pretty unusual.
I was not kidding about the census categorizations that get repurposed on immigration forms, though. They are full of apples and oranges in all sorts of arrangements and I have never once felt I fit on any of the categories or that the categories themselves make any sense.
Man, I say this a lot and I know it comes across standoffish, but… US ethnic categorizations seem bonkers to me.
What does “half Jewish half Irish” even mean? Isn’t that a Jewish person from Ireland? That would count as fully both things. What are the other two halves?
This is why I have to think about the immigration form for ten minutes each time I get through customs in the US, it’s all “was any of your grandparents a smurf?” and “are you latino and/or lactose intolerant?” and stuff like that. It makes no sense.
I hear this a lot, and… I’m not so sure.
I mean, for one with modern installers if you’re at the stage where you’re on the terminal as a basic user you are having to troubleshoot more problems than you should have and the issue isn’t the terminal but the stuff that isn’t working that lead you to need to use it.
But also… Windows has one of those, too. Two, actually. Every other troubleshooting page for Windows online has you open a command line and type some stuff up, when not messing with PowerShell. It’s not that weird.
I find that Linux users and communities have a tendency to overestimate how much of the issue is “the terminal” or “the interface not looking like Windows”. I don’t think it’s that big of a deal if the distro you’re installing works first time out of the box. The problem is when it doesn’t, because terminal or not, that’s a dealbreaker for most people.
I mean, see above for my estimate of how big that contribution is, discounting the effect of the rather unLinux-y experience of using the Deck.
Proton and Wine support help, although I genuinely would like to see more laptops shipping Linux by default more than I care about the Deck. I recently tried to move a laptop to Linux and the terrible support for custom hardware made it unfeasible. That machine is back on Windows now.
The underreported key to Linux on the Deck is that it’s configured for the hardware out of the box. In a world where modular, standardized desktop computing is not mainstream outside techie circles, Linux’s problem is that most normies on Windows aren’t on a desktop PC with AMD gear, they’re on some slightly but noticeably custom branded laptop still running its default Windows install.
The rise of Linux in this is absolutely driven by SteamOS and the Steam Deck, let’s be honest here. This narrative of people escaping Windows because of W11 changes that pretty much only get reported here is… a bit of wishful thinking.
There’s a concept where I’m from of an employee committee, which is just an assembly of the workers in a particular workplace and a valid actor in collective bargaining. I’ve been a part of one to negotiate specific policies.
Still a collective bargaining agent, though. Whether or not it fits the US’s specific legal categorization of a union, engaging in collective negotiations with employers in an organized manner is fairly universally applicable and positive. “Unions just don’t fit this kind of work” sounds a heck of a lot like an excuse to avoid having collective bargaining altogether.
Well, it’s two different things, one is the background record, which is less “freaking out” and more “not for me on PC”.
The other is blending the background recording with metadata on a timeline, which starts getting Recall-y in terms of logging a video recording of what you were doing where there is also a data record of what you were doing. I do think that part starts stepping over to kinda creepy.
It’s more useful here than as a OS feature, though, because yeah, I can see it saving one the trouble of recording different matches separately or having to scrub back and forth to find certain things.