Someone1234

Right; but THAT idea is consumer hostile by design.

So your account is now tied to a physical device; great, but the device is dead, or you own a dozen devices, now what? Each vendor has their own idea about what THIS means. Heck I have a couple that allow, max, a single Passkey at a time.

There is no need or advantage to a full frontal assault.

Perhaps, but in the last year China did build these:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/03/stairway-to-tai...

Then most of us would never use it. That means either:

- Only one specific device can ever login (bad).

- It doesn't limit login to one specific device, therefore it does nothing.

Linking Passkeys to a physical device was always DoA. At least not without a way to enroll every device you own, and strong recovery strategies. But considering how inconsistent every company's Passkey implementation is (inc. many that only allow ONE TOTAL!), it is DoA.

Less work today or less work tomorrow?

The problem with "someone makes a request, code changes happen automatically, and all someone else has to do for that to be committed is mash approve" doesn't strike me as a way to create a maintainable code-base.

The changes may even work, and may technically fulfill the request, but the agent cannot know the design intent or process intent. Today there may be a programmer sitting between the request and approval, but what about tomorrow? Might it be a non-technical or barely technical middle manager?

I suspect they're ignoring that debate since they have reason to anticipate a US Government action that allows them to not need to compete in a free market.

That has been my experience too.

It will cost you more than it saves to use smaller Chinese models to code; because of the repeated work. That has been slowly changing recently, but with much larger Chinese models, however those models are so expensive they're much more price-competitive iwth the US competition.

But for actually providing end-user AI features, particularly simpler ones, the US isn't even in contention. The costs and limitations just outright kill those features conceptually.

You're much more "glass half full" than me, but one can dream.

That's great, thank you.

What's frustrating about that is that Microsoft has also gone out of their way to make it difficult to access the [legacy] System Properties (sysdm.cpl), while not fully reimplementing all the features into the Settings app. Including this one.

They've only been working on this 10+ years...

The graph is not presenting a narrative, did you mean to reply to someone else who is presenting the "revisionist history"?

The title of this thread is "What AI did to stackoverflow in a graph." That's a narrative. At least before the mods change it.

ChatGPT was released in Nov 2022, and frankly wasn't very good originally. The SO decline started occurring almost two years ahead of that, and was already on a sharp decline before ChatGPT shipped, and certainly before ChatGPT actually became good.

This is revisionist history. People told SO that they were leaving for YEARS because of how incredibly toxic it had become. It was already giving outdated answers before ChatGPT shipped, because new questions/potentially updated answers were [Closed] [Dupe] immediately.

Their answer was essentially "We aren't a Q&A site, we're trying to be a knowledge base! So closing all questions on a Q&A-stylized site, and extremely abrasive moderation, is working as intended."

They entirely did this to themselves. The community was toxic, their policies were toxic, and they didn't listen when warned as such repeatedly - just doubled down.

The monitor itself isn't installing anything, Windows detects the device by unique ID, and uses Windows Update to get the driver which itself triggers a Windows Store application (malware) to install.

The monitor only sends a unique device ID, everything else is handled by Windows.

Worth noting that gpedit.msc isn't included in Windows Home editions (although there are unsupported ways of adding it). This is also technically asking a lot for working around issues that shouldn't exist.

Microsoft needs to intervene here, this cannot be a normal expectation for using their product.

I'd agree it is similar to Anthropic's naming scheme, which I'd argue shares the same problems as this. It improves marketability/googlability, but decreases actual comprehension.

You don't actually explain why or how these names are "easy to understand" just state that they simply are. That's great; to me, they aren't obvious or intuitive at all. May have well just start randomly pointing at dictionary words.

When do you use GPT-5.6-Max-Low vs. GPT-5.6-Plus High?

You don't, because that isn't something I proposed using for model naming.

I called them GPT-5.6-Max, GPT-5.6-Plus, and GPT-5.6-Fast. Reasoning levels are distinct from the model design itself, and the UI makes that clear.

Plus, using that same flawed argument this would be called GPT-5.6-Sol-Low or GPT-5.6-Luna-High which also makes no sense/is confusing. So that argument applies (or more accurately doesn't), no matter the model names.

That isn't what "genuinely asking" looks like, you're criticizing using "questions" as cover. It isn't subtle, nor is it constructive.

I agree with them, Sol, Terra, and Luna are confusing names. They mean the same thing as GPT-5.6-Max, GPT-5.6-Plus, and GPT-5.6-Fast but require base knowledge for an analogy.

It feels like it was adding by the marketing department.

I too found this with their previous attempts.

I have my Chat personality settings stripped right down to no-fluff. I'd want voice to be more akin to the Star Trek computer, and less akin to as you said an AI friend, but previously it was tuned too personable/friend-like.

Blizzard is such a shell now, that I doubt we'd notice.

I consider reasoning to be a huge quality differentiator particularly for complex questions/medium+ length discussions.

Low-Thinking/non-Thinking absolutely has a place, but not in a tool like ChatGPT due to its very nature/designed purpose. Low-Thinking is useful in simple tasks/utilities where it is a straight 1:1 between the source and destination, like automated workflows.

ChatGPT Instant simply isn't worth using for the task they're assigning it. Medium Thinking is passable but High or better has a marked quality improvement/reduction in hallucinations.

Thinking isn't anything to do with logic/arithmetic/programming; it simply allows the LLM to spend longer deliberating/second-guessing itself, rather than looking for the shorter path to a supposed "answer." A LOT of mistakes get washed out in that second-guessing step (although of course mistakes can still occur YMMV). This lack of mistakes does make it better at logic/arithmetic/programming, but it also makes it better at everything else too.

I believe Google's Gemini gives you a handful of free Thinking credits a day, I'd give that a shot and I believe you'll see what I mean.

That edge case is certainly their official excuse.

Ultimately to determine the underlying root-cause you'd still need to dig this same information out, and all they've done is moved the starting line behind several walls. In essence adding extra work, without solving this edge case/issue.

Regardless of if the information is in the BSOD, Event Log, or only via WinDbg, understanding the information relies on the expertise of the person reviewing/contextualizing it. They've gone out of their way to make contextualizing it harder.

For example, to determine if it is a direct failure or an associative failure (e.g. RAM failing causing different BSODs in unrelated modules), you want that context to be obvious. But without the module being in the Event Logs, you're now loading up half a dozen MiniDumps in WinDbg to find that same very key information - which people may miss or fail to do.

What I am saying is: If we believe that excuse (which I don't), they've done absolutely nothing to address it and just made that same problem worse with their childish games.

For most here, I don't think this article contains new information.

The actual interesting discussion, to me, is why Microsoft won't show WHO is dangling the handle open when the user tries to interact with a file via Windows' UI. To understand that, we have to look at a BSOD change Microsoft made in Windows 8:

In Windows 2K, XP, Vista, and 7 the BSOD would tell you exactly WHO was causing your BSOD (i.e. which module). Which was incredibly helpful, when you could see it was a e.g. Creative sound driver, or Nvidia graphics driver. Then in Windows 8/8.1 they went to the "sad face" simplified BSOD screen. From then on in order to see which module it originated in, you had to load the mini-dump into WinDbg (which almost no users would/could do).

What I am saying is: Microsoft went out of their way to shield their partners (OEMs/hardware vendors) from criticism with that BSOD UI change. So it seems unlikely they'd make a change to the "File Locked" UI that would essentially do the same thing: Open up their partners to criticism for their [bad] software (e.g. anti-virus/anti-malware/corporate compliance/etc).

Then tack on that Microsoft's own software may be some misbehaving software; and they'd essentially be telling on themselves. OneDrive in particular, I've seen in that list a lot (but I could write paragraphs on what a turd/abandonware OneDrive is).

Part 1 was interesting; it isn't clear why he split that into a Part 2 since it adds little to the story and is a paragraph long.

If people want specifics about what this is, look here:

https://knowledge.workspace.google.com/admin/security/contex...

In particular "Allow access to devices using Chrome browser with security requirements" would present this message.

I just flagged this article, and want to explain my reasoning.

This is an unacceptable level of clickbait journalism. Nothing in the article's title is substantiated in the article's content, it doesn't break any of those three things, and the failures it does report are trivial (a dialog displays incorrectly, and a few devices have scattered reports of instability).

Microsoft has made a lot of mistakes in recent years, but this article isn't about them. We shouldn't invite in this level of clickbait even if it is popular to criticize Microsoft, because all it does is add noise to an otherwise very necessary discussion of MS's practices.

I wouldn't trust an "Excel guy" who said that, they aren't staying current/using new functionality.

Just off the top of my head:

IFNA, FORMULATEXT, DAYS, CONCAT, IFS, SWITCH, XLOOKUP/XMATCH, FILTER, UNIQUE, LET, TEXTBEFORE/TEXTAFTER, LAMBDA, et al.

But my favorite improvement is the "don't intentionally corrupt CSVs" options found in Settings -> Data -> Automatic Data Conversion (hint: Disable everything). Only took them 30-years to add that. Absolutely absurd these are enabled by default still.

Excel is one of Microsoft's best pieces of software and one of the very few they haven't turned into slop YET. Still don't understand why we don't have local-only Python to replace VBA at all license levels (i.e. non-cloud).

Which is why the UK Government is currently discussing restricting VPNs behind real-ID style verification too.

So all of the legit providers will be required to collect ID, and anyone not willing to will be funnelled onto the sketchy providers; which I'm sure won't backfire at all...

What disappointments me even more than the UK having these authoritarian polices, is that so many people seemingly support this.

Anonymity online is of course a double-edged sword, but we've seen the authorities, particularly but not exclusively, in the UK use intimidating tactics against those with unfavorable political views. Even when those views didn't break the law (e.g. no calls for violence).

If you also look at how nearly all the existing "verification" systems work, it is just a giant data drag-net, that is absolutely used to associate your real-ID with their advertising analytics. It isn't subtle. Which is why "big tech" (e.g. Meta, Google, Palantir) aren't far behind many proposals.

They are losing money because they are training new models and building new data centers.

Neither of which ever goes away. These aren't short term costs, they're the costs of running their business, and it isn't profitable.

The claim of the video is that they're losing money just serving current AI models.

Which is true. Every one is losing money, none are profitable. They're losing money serving current AI models.

There's just no evidence of that.

Their own profit/loss statements are "evidence of that." According to these companies themselves, they're at a net loss every quarter. So it isn't clear what more "evidence" people need or expect.

They didn't get "caught." It was published, by them, when they released Fable a few days ago. They were very clear about it.

It wasn't the correct way of handling the problem they were trying to address, but they definitely didn't hide it by any reasonable definition.

This rumor is not demonstrably true.

OpenAI, Anthropic, and Microsoft/Meta/Google are all at a net negative on AI (i.e. they're "demonstrably" losing money). So it is objectively true. If everyone is losing money, and nobody is profitable, then it is a demonstrable fact.

As far as I know, the only "AI" venture currently in the green is Nvidia, and they're selling shovels to gold miners.

Many of us would love to, and the models are there, but we're constrained by heavily inflated hardware costs.

If big AI does crash out, it would be an absolute gold-mine for local LLM. Cheap, efficient, Nvidia GPUs, and RAM that can run the best local models already available, will be a real boon.

PS - And as great as Qwen3.6-27B is, how large you can scale it (i.e. how big of a context/project) is mostly hardware constrained.