Since 2013, both Sony and Microsoft have been using custom variants of AMD’s consumer chips for CPU and GPU. These consoles are basically just laptop boards with some custom architecture, but at this stage most of the “Console” design is some software level features and a consistent baseline hardware spec to shoot for.

Sony still does seem to put mor effort into the hardware portion, but Xbox hardware has been little more than an SFF PC for a couple generations now

Using the old interface seems to yield better results there. It appears to be their newer API model that’s suffering.

In my experience, they come in waves. They come either as data centres seek to replace or renew existing drives, but as a result, there aren’t as many lower capacity drives available. Lately, I’ve only seen 10+TB drives under a recertified banner, though you can find lower capacity drives that are “refurbished” instead. They will have the power-on hours to match though, as these are the refuse from those sorts of drive replacements.

You may find better luck with local used marketplaces if you only need cheap storage. Otherwise, they do seem less common if you don’t need large capacity drives.

Fair enough. I missed this push amidst every other AI related enshittification tactict at the time I guess. That said, this is how it should work. An organization proposes a change and the change is withdrawn or halted after the userbase is able to weigh in. I’m pleased that they didn’t barrel ahead with it despite the outcry.

I feel for the Wikimedia foundation right now. They’re under mounting pressure to compete with corporations that hold a monopoly on how people access their sites and subsequently the information on them. The goal is to provide open information, but that information is no less open to the AI that aims to scrape, rehost, and re-use the work of individuals who have volunteered their time to it.

I think it would have been easy for them to effectively do what Reddit did, and lock down the access to the site and its content in order to develop their own AI tools to perform similar tasks trained on their dataset exclusively. Instead, they’ve listened and I hope they continue to listen to their dedicated members who believe in the foundation’s original goals.

Not all AI use is bad, and it sounds to me like you didn’t read that article itself. They have no desire or intention to use AI in a way that directly effects the information on the site, how it’s presented to visitors or to use it in a way that would manipulate how articles are edited.

The only potential note is translation, but translation is such a massive undertaking that by providing a means to discuss and interact between languages, the information becomes more broadly available and open to correction as needed by native speakers.

Also, Britannica does employ the use of AI within their own system as well, even providing a chatbot by which to ask questions and search for information. It is, in this way, more involved than Wikipedia’s goals.