Note that he said written by, not assisted; and also that there's been some major QA issues with win11 the last year, enough for Microsoft to have made a public apology/commitment to improve...
So, no definitive evidence, but the rest of the breadcrumbs provide enough to say that yes it does appear to have suffered from it.
Given the Debian policy seems more geared towards aided/assisted an existing dev than replacing them and shipping because the code works on the golden path on a devs monster pc ... Well I'd still keep an eye on it but trust OSS OS engineers to have some competence at knowing if this works and adjusting the policy later if it proved to be wrong.
Someone with financial / decision making weight their is going to ask why they are commoditizing models that run on "others" GPUs .... Since doing that makes their gpus less of the scarce resource..
It was unreliable post acq. and before the slop-tsunami, the latter has just multiplied the underlying issue of their ipv4 only half assed azure migration.
Yes yes yes, we know. Git is decentralised, you can just trivially push* anywhere!
* - the code. Just the code. only the code. Nothing but the code.
You don't need the issues, the roadmap, the ACL of which human can do what, the API access keys for third parties, the artifact repos. Just. The. Code.
Somewhat arsey in my tone? Yeah. But having done two large scale (100+ repos) forge migrations of our company's client projects (SVN -> github, then later on github -> bitbucket) and seeing people completely ignore the metadata surrounding the code that isn't as easy to "just push" anywhere, somewhat justified.
I don't think it was finished before the map got rotated out due to all the changes to Minecraft world gen back then, decent progress was made on the big dig though.
It should be in the ver3/terra map download; best of luck getting the world data updated for modern MC.
Because those people see the phrase "AI features" and the first thought is those sloppy generative AI stuff where things shift.
Where as marketing at all these corporation is trying to genericize "AI features" into anything using an algorithm.
"Content aware fill", something we've had for over a decade is now "AI object removal"
I’m not sure I agree? For each of your examples there are algorithmic approaches and neural network approaches. Companies have certainly been loose and wild with how they market these, but there remain distinct approaches and implementations for each. Very generally speaking, the neural network based approaches (aka “generative AI”) perform better but with much worse degenerative cases and a higher baseline rate of unwanted side effects (that are normally not immediately visible but tend to cause issues down the line).
My bigger concern is that these neural network based solutions have taken the place of the former rather than supplemented them. Many tools no longer provide the algorithmic/kernel-based approach at all, and have marketed the “AI” (née ML) alternative as a strict superset/upgrade, despite its potential drawbacks.
(Interestingly while the inference-based implementations generally have higher latency (or infinitely worse, cloud and pay-as-you-go requirements), for some computationally difficult kernels the inference-based approach is actually faster!
https://xkcd.com/908/