With physical contact, speech can signal consent or lack thereof. How would you consent to speech itself?

So basically Go?

Why not ship your own model? In the age of Electron apps, 10GB+ apps are not unheard of.

How do you make sure that whoever makes that choice makes it in a way you yourself will agree with?

What? How does this not show willingness to insult Musk?

Where did you observe the bias? Can you share any example of the conversation or post by Grok?

As an everyday user of AI, both at work and privately, I am not that convinced. The biggest effect I've seen so far is demand for faster work because "everything is faster with agents", but software quality is slowly dropping in software I see around me.

Current AI is very useful as a trivia engine and as a language manipulation tool - i.e. it can quickly extract information from a huge amount of text. But it still sucks when writing new things.

Admittedly, here has been much progress, but it seems to be slowing down. Money is drying out, models are getting nerfed, and only better scaffolding and workflows are making it better. Unless they build 100x more data centers, I don't see models getting significantly better.

Obligatory xkcd:

https://xkcd.com/810/

This concedes exactly the point I was making. You are stripping the word "God" of its established attributes (such as intellect, intent, and agency) and reducing it to a highly specific technical definition of a "self-subsisting being" or "first cause".

> "God" is the traditional name for this first cause.

This is a linguistic bait-and-switch. You cannot use a strictly literal, narrowed definition of a term to construct a logical proof, and then implicitly rely on the common interpretation of that same term to assert a broader reality. Labeling a mechanical first cause as "God" deliberately smuggles in the classical theistic baggage that your general observations about causality do not actually demonstrate.

Observing that change exists and positing a fundamental necessity for it does not prove a deity. Calling that fundamental necessity "God" is just a tautology designed to shield a religious premise behind sterile metaphysical jargon.

Prior to 0.9 (if I recall correctly), you had to install a plugin to be able to interface with LSP servers, and in 0.9 they integrated the support into NeoVim itself.

If you redefine God to mean "fundamental assumptions of the universe", its existence becomes tautological. But that is not what most people mean (including the author of the article we're commenting on) when they say "God".

If it were so, God's existence would be just another scientific fact.

A religious person - if not honest enough to simply say "existence of God is an axiom and cannot be derived from reason alone" - uses the very predictions of experiments to reason God into existence: everything that exists has a cause; universe exists; therefore universe has a cause.