Programming would be great, if it wasn’t for computers (and users, too, but those would stay away without the damn computers).

(Don’t get me wrong, I love computers, they’re great, as long as they stay turned off.)

I like the functional parts of C♯, though.

The images on the article clearly show that they’re not storing the data, they’re storing enough information about the data to reconstruct a rough and mostly useless approximation of the data (and they do so in such a way that the information about one piece of data can be combined with the information about another one to produce another rough and mostly useless approximation of a combination of those two pieces of data, which was not in the original dataset).

It’s like playing a telephone game with a description of an image, with the last person drawing the result.

The legal and ethical failure is in commercially using artists’ works (as a training model) without permission, not in storing or even reproducing them, since the slop they produce is evidently an approximation and not the real thing.

Because they intentionally broke the search engines in order to make LLMs look better.

Search engines used to produce much more useful results than LLMs ever will (even excluding the ones they make up), before google and microsoft started pushing this garbage.

It stores the shape of the information, not the information itself.

Which might be useful from a statistics and analytics viewpoint, but isn’t very practical as an information storage mechanism.

Microsoft Bob.