The correct answer to my question based on the links provided would be "no". They used chatbot code reviews, which is dumb. It does not appear that they used LLM-shitted code or LLM integration. Providing separately downloaded plugins is another thing. Out of those 5 plugins, arguably only one is unethical generative "AI". One of them is a noise reduction filter, one a music track separation model (which is novel to machine learning afaik), one is voice transcription and the last is upscaling. Do you really think these are so terrible? Are you just against the entire field of machine learning? What specifically is your criticism of these?
You have to consider the scope of the knowledge we are able to obtain about the deep past. We certainly know nothing about the particular events of a given day 2 billion years ago, but we can determine lots of broad/granular knowledge based on the available evidence.
When it comes to physics, we are able to verify both the accuracy of models in the present and the consistency of these models with evidence from the past, all the way back to the inflationary period after the "big bang". The universality of physics across time and space is generally a necessary assumption to seek any understanding of the universe across time and space. This does not, however, mean that this assumption is baseless. A universe inconsistent with this assumption would almost certainly produce evidence of this inconsistency, which has never been shown to be the case. To the contrary, tests of universality on observations from the distant universe based on physical constants measured here on Earth have only ever been consistent with universality.
We can wax philosophical all day about the unknowability of all things outside our own minds; but ultimately we must work with the tools at our disposal, fallible though they may be, to understand our world. The same tools that allow us to know that a ball will fall when thrown also allow us to understand the early, and distant, universe.
You also have no idea how much of that 200 pages is true and accurate, nor which parts are, nor what any of the biases/ideologies of the original source materials may be (as they have been garbled). So basically, you have no reliable new information.
No software updates for TVs, if that includes "smart" TVs, is insane. If the panel still works in 30 years, you should still be able to update to a supported OS version for the streaming apps in 30 years. Current "smart" TVs too often get bricked (for normies) by losing update support and then support from all the streaming apps.
Okay, I was amused before but now this has gone back to the usual frustration. Do you really not see how that reply hints at your assumption that everyone you speak to on the internet is a man?
Yes there's a difference between atomic and immutable but Bazzite (and Fedora atomic which it is based on) is both atomic and immutable. Immutable means much of the system is normally read-only at runtime (the system libraries and software, but not your user software and home folder), and should only be modified under certain circumstances, if at all. In Fedora Atomic/Bazzite, updates to system software either 1) update the upstream system image, or 2) are "layered" by you on top of the base image. When a new package is layered, it is added to the system at startup.
Immutable doesn't truly mean immutable though, as you can switch the filesystem from readonly if you want to. It's just not recommended.
99% of the time though, you shouldn't need to layer any packages. The only packages I've ever needed to layer have been the codecs on fedora atomic that fedora isn't willing to package in its own repos for patent/legal reasons. Bazzite has all of these by default. So on my bazzite PC, I've not had to modify the base system at all for any gaming, office, creative, or coding activities I've done.
The correct answer to my question based on the links provided would be "no". They used chatbot code reviews, which is dumb. It does not appear that they used LLM-shitted code or LLM integration. Providing separately downloaded plugins is another thing. Out of those 5 plugins, arguably only one is unethical generative "AI". One of them is a noise reduction filter, one a music track separation model (which is novel to machine learning afaik), one is voice transcription and the last is upscaling. Do you really think these are so terrible? Are you just against the entire field of machine learning? What specifically is your criticism of these?