FaceDeer

Oo. I use Qwen3-30B-A3B-Thinking-2507 as my generic “workhorse” local LLM, so this looks like it might be a nice upgrade with exactly the same basic specs. I’ll try it out.

Ethereum’s got a market cap of $350 billion and it’s where all the new development is going on, according to the Electric Capital Developer it has by far the most developers working on and with it. Approximately 65% of all new code written in the entire crypto industry is written for Ethereum or its Layer 2 scaling solutions (like Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base).

It’s spelled “Dogecoin,” by the way.

I said no major cryptocurrency. Monero’s got a market cap of $8 billion, it’s small fry.

No major cryptocurrency has used GPUs for mining for many years. Bitcoin uses completely custom ASICs and Ethereum switched away from proof of work entirely.

I guess we’ll see what people here find to complain about now.

A technology I’ve been eagerly anticipating for many, many years now. It still sounds like it’s in the “Real Soon Now, honest!” Phase though:

In the next 18 months, the company hopes to have a field-deployable read device that customers can use to read archived data. But SPhotonix isn’t presently targeting the consumer market. Kazansky estimates that the initial cost of the read device will be about $6,000 and the initial cost of the write device will be about $30,000.

[…]

“We need another three or four years of R&D to get it to the production and marketing standpoint,” Kazansky said.

[,]

“We are not aiming to become a manufacturing company,” said Kazansky. “We are a technology licensing company. We love the model of Arm Holdings. And to a certain extent, we love the model of Nvidia. So we are developing the enablement technology, and then we’re going to be forming some form of a consortium, some form of a group of companies that will help us to bring this technology to market.”

Which is where it’s been for all of those many years I’ve been anticipating it. But who knows, perhaps this will be the company to finally start selling them. I’m fine with them being expensive at first, the cost will come down if they take off.

It’s funny how completely opposite to this my experience over the past couple of years has been. Twice now I’ve been practically begging my managers to let me use AI-based tools to make my work easier, they’ve responded “no, we don’t want AI touching any of our stuff for vague legal paranoia reasons”, and then the company suffered a collapse and everyone got laid off.

At least AI can tell it to your face. :)

They got their user base by being the first ones to have open access to it. Being the first to market OFC gives a massive advantage.

Right, and then everyone chose to go use them.

This isn’t AI vs everything. This is ONLY the “AI” products compared to themselves

Every single one of them showed an increase in user growth, Microsoft just didn’t grow as much as the others. They’re not just shuffling the same users around, they’re continuing to gain new ones.

And as I pointed out in another response to you, chatgpt.com is the fourth-most-visited website in the world. They’re doing that with just a thousand users?

chatgpt.com is the fourth-most-visted website in the world (as of September, when this data is from). That’s the website, not the API. People have to choose to go to the chatgpt.com website in their browser, when OpenAI’s APIs are used by other products they don’t go to the chatgpt.com website. The API is at openai.com.

How are all those people people being “forced” to go to chatgpt.com?

Alright. So for purposes of argument, let’s accept all of that. Microsoft and Google are just faking it all, everyone’s tricked or forced into using their AI offerings.

The whole table from the article:

ChatGPT by far has the bigger established user base. How did they force and/or trick everyone into using them?

Claude AI is growing their userbase faster than Google, how are they tricking and/or forcing everyone to switch over to them?

None of these other AI service providers, except for Grok, have a pre-existing platform with users that they can capture artificially. People are willingly going over to these services and using them. Both Microsoft and Google could vanish completely and it would take out less than a third of the AI search market.

And yet beating out both of them by a very wide margin, with 61.30% of the AI search share, is ChatGPT. Which didn’t have any established reputation or pre-installed userbase or anything at all that either Microsoft or Google started out with.

Your friend uses Gemini, presumably willingly. That’s not “faked.” This narrative of “nobody wants AI” is false, it’s just popular among social media bubbles where people want it to be true.

They’ve got 70% of the desktop operating system share. Seems like every other thread about them around these parts is how they’re “shoving AI down everyones’ throats.” I’m dubious that they’re “easier to ignore.”

So why aren’t Microsoft’s numbers going up? Everyone’s faking it except them?

Rare to see an AI-positive article getting so many upvotes on @technology@beehaw.org.

According to the chart in the article every AI is seeing stronger growth than Copilot, on a percentage gain basis. Gemini’s just the one that looks like it’s about to surpass Copilot in total market share.

So not only are people not reading the articles any more, they’re not even finishing reading the headlines all the way through?

I guess this accused witch was innocent after all.

Oh well, the price of purity. Throw the next one in the pond to see if they sink too!

I would recommend continuing to use Firefox until you actually don’t like it, rather than switch because of yet another social media post raging about AI. 90% of the time I’ve seen people complaining about AI being “shoved in their faces” it’s something that I had no idea existed and had to actively seek out and enable to see it in action.

Just don’t use features that you don’t want to use.

And for years people have insisted to me that there’s no use to be had from fully decentralized DNS alternatives like ENS.

These things are like backups. You need to start using them before you discover that you need them.

I remember doing something like this with the OG ChatGPT around when it first came out to the public, I gave it a bunch of jokes to explain to see how well it did. I wasn’t particularly rigorous but I remember noticing that it did pretty well with puns and wordplay, and often when it didn’t “get” a joke it would assume it was an obscure pun or wordplay joke and make up an explanation along those lines. I figured that made sense given it was a large language model, its sense of humor would naturally be language-based.