Leon

困。

[Leon @leontang_net]

@mylifcc 我SE2用了6年多、15PRO用了快3年，都是重度使用，SE2划痕严重、15PRO几乎没有划痕。二者都没有贴膜，SE2的壳比屏幕低，15PRO壳比屏幕高，两部手机都跌落过好几次，屏幕完全没影响。另外还有SE3和16E很少用，也没有划痕。

[Leon @leontang_net]

@native_mamba0g @mylifcc 那你去真空里就好了

[Leon @leontang_net]

@garrulous_abyss 有些事并不需要逻辑，很大概率是更年期激素作祟。

[Leon @leontang_net]

@johnternus 哈喽

[Carina Nicolosi @CarinaN818]

China and the United States are not running one AI and robotics race. They are following two different pipelines toward the same convergence.

An important distinction: this is not about which country used robots first. The world’s first industrial robot entered a General Motors plant in 1961.

It is about each country’s dominant contemporary entry point and what the technology first came to mean socially.

China’s pipeline:

1978 economic reform → 2001 WTO membership → manufacturing expansion and internal migrant labor → world’s largest industrial-robot market by 2013 → national humanoid-robot strategy in 2023 → 54 percent of global industrial-robot installations in 2024 → AI-powered robots

What did robots do to China?

They did not simply replace workers. They automated particular tasks, increased production, addressed labor shortages, and relieved parts of the physical burden carried by factory workers.

In research published in The China Quarterly in 2025, among Chinese manufacturing workers who had experienced automation:

• 63 percent said work became less physically demanding.

• 54 percent said work became less dangerous.

• 45 percent reported an improved work environment.

But the benefit was not unconditional. Nearly half believed their jobs could be automated within five to ten years, and other research has documented employment and wage losses from greater robot exposure.

Robots therefore brought China both relief and displacement. The difference is that relief from dangerous and repetitive labor became visible first.

The American pipeline:

1961 first industrial robot at GM → manufacturing employment peaks at 19.6 million in 1979 → decades of offshoring, productivity gains, and movement toward a service economy → college and cognitive work become the promised path to security → ChatGPT enters public life on November 30, 2022 → generative AI enters coding, writing, research, design, and administration → autonomous agents → robotic embodiment

China met AI through the robot’s body.

America met the contemporary automation wave through the machine’s mind.

Now the two pipelines are converging. China is adding intelligence to the industrial body it already possesses. America is attempting to give digital intelligence a body.

Yet the American social narrative remains fragmented.

Corporations see efficiency.

Critics see threats.

Government sees a race against China.

Futurists promise abundance after work disappears.

Almost no dominant institution is designing the social body that would allow human and robotic capabilities to advance together while preserving human income, identity, agency, ownership, and opportunity.

America is building the machine’s body without designing the social body capable of receiving it.

That is the deeper American gap.

It is not merely a robotics gap.

It is a dream gap.

Who will design a future in which humans and robots, different in form, can become part of the same dream?

[Leon @leontang_net]

@caiyue5 我相反，一直因为豆包此前的logo太丑而尽量不用它。早就该换了。

[Leon @leontang_net]

雨城

[Leon @leontang_net]

@mtrainier2020 1号试错成本高，后续合作过程变数大，稳定性不强。

[Leon @leontang_net]

@Leo1625590 因为苹果的处罚是很严厉的，如果对方不解决，他账号下的所有app可能都会被无限期下架。这种理论上应该要经济赔偿才能放过。不然抄袭无代价，下次换个继续超。

[Leon @leontang_net]

@laowangbabababa 国内的厂商要花钱给运营商买流量，价格跟国外谷歌、cf这些没法比。这不是什么新话题了。

[Carina Nicolosi @CarinaN818]

Hey @ilyasut prove that your AI model has a mind.

There is a missing premise in every claim that AI will become a “superintelligence” and surpass humans.

Human intelligence is a capacity of the human mind. Therefore, if “superintelligence” means an intelligence greater than the human mind as a whole, AI must first be shown to possess the organized cognitive system we call a mind.

Otherwise, no two minds are being compared. There is one mind and one computational tool whose outputs are measured against selected performances of that mind.

A calculator surpasses humans in arithmetic. A chess engine surpasses humans in chess. Neither result establishes a superior mind. It establishes superior task performance.

So only two coherent claims are available:

If superintelligence means superhuman performance across tasks, call it that. A mind is not required.

If superintelligence means a superior intelligence that surpasses the human mind, the missing premise is evidence that AI has a mind.

Personhood is not the issue. Consciousness is a separate question.

The logical error is moving from “it performs better than a mind at selected tasks” to “it is a greater mind” without first demonstrating that any machine mind exists.

[Leon @leontang_net]

@DIGITALYCHEE @YanYufei26220 感觉https://t.co/MY6ElCGLdf视觉上会协调一点

[Leon @leontang_net]

@conceal00 @luoleiorg 试错成本低，十几块丢了多数人也无所谓

[Leon @leontang_net]

@luoleiorg 收不到短信，电话接打都不行。

[Leon @leontang_net]

@ElwinyangS 多谢

[Leon @leontang_net]

@luoleiorg @anthon20177 我可以用流量，但是通话和短信都无效。

[Leon @leontang_net]

@arvin17x 解散以后体验会不会好点？

[Leon @leontang_net]

@mtrainier2020 批发的装饰书壳吧

[Leon @leontang_net]

@chenchengpro 🤓