| ▲ | tliltocatl 7 hours ago |
| I think people screaming "but AI is the future" doesn't recognize what the problem is. The problem is not AI. The problem is that Mozilla keeps jumping on fads instead of focusing on their browser core. There are a tons of "we bundled all the latest crap" Chrome forks out there. Nobody needs more those. Stop pushing bells and whistles. Give us more extensibility instead. Keep supporting v2 manifest and add more. There were genuine technical reasons for why XUL and NPAPI had to die, but we need an equally powerful alternative. And yea, having a faint through about removing adblock support, yet alone speaking it aloud is a really bad sign for Mozilla's future. |
|
| ▲ | giancarlostoro an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| I am waiting for a serious fork of Mozilla to emerge at this point that pays the maintainers better in a bid to overtake Mozilla itself. People would donate to get a better browser, people dont donate because Mozilla wastes all their donor funds on nonsense. |
|
| ▲ | tim333 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I just force quit Firefox because it was slowing the macbook with loads of memory use for nothing much running. On with Chrome... They should that sort of thing? |
| |
| ▲ | galleywest200 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I have not really ever had this issue, and I use Firefox Developer Edition on an M2 Macbook Pro every work day. |
|
|
| ▲ | mrweasel 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It might open up for a terrifying level of abuse, but if you can have Dtrace and eBPF implemented in the Linux kernel, you can surely design an API for allowing AIs to be plug-able within Firefox. Firefox is already a really good browser, Mozilla really should be focusing on that. They can design and implement an AI plugin system to go into that core. People who want AI can install an agent and enable the AI sub-system. If the AI companies won't implement it, Mozilla can do it and charge a fee for the plugin. |
|
| ▲ | PurpleRamen 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The problem is that Mozilla keeps jumping on fads instead of focusing on their browser core. They always did, everyone does. This is not really new, and not really that harmful in itself. The deeper problem is that you need developers who are also understanding what they are doing, what people want and need, developers who are nerdy about some topic and very deep into their understanding of it. But Mozilla seems to lack this, which is also why they have to follow every fad blindly, because they just don't know it better, have no real vision and understanding which enables them to build something really worthful. Mozilla seems to be the embodiment of what happens when you have a task and your solution is to just throw money at it until something works. And let's be fair, it is easy to be good at something, but really hard to master it and dominate the world. It's not really their fault, they are probably doing their best, they just don't know it better, and so does everyone, including fans if we are honest. Everyone has their own preferences and goals, and often they are conflicting with each other. Mozilla has to find a common ground to server as much people as possible, and IMHO they are still good at this. Firefox used to be so much worse on some aspects, Chrome and other Browser are still worse on other aspects. Getting the perfect Browser is just not realistic. > Give us more extensibility instead. True, it's really a joke how many of their promised APIs never were finished after they killed XUL. > Keep supporting v2 manifest and add more. Didn't they say they will continue with Manifest v2? > There were genuine technical reasons for why XUL and NPAPI had to die, but we need an equally powerful alternative. Wasn't NPAPI mostly replaced with HTML5? Most stuff done with Flash or Java-Applets is now possible out of the box. Or is something missing? |
| |
| ▲ | ethbr1 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > [Mozilla always jumped on fads], everyone does. If you read down in the thread, there's a good discussion about how this simply isn't true about Mozilla. Of the fads Christophe Henry mentioned top of thread, Mozilla flat out didn't invest any resources in some of them, invested minimal resources in others (accepting donations in crypto), and modest resources in VR (which you'd expect given the browser-VR integration standards forming). So the feeling about Mozilla being tech-ADHD comes more from folks reading their social media posts than the people who work there or watch the codebase. | |
| ▲ | tliltocatl 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Didn't they say they will continue with Manifest v2? Yes and that's a good thing > Wasn't NPAPI mostly replaced with HTML5? It's true that what NPAPI was used for 99% of the time is better served by HTML5. But it's not like NPAPI was limited to Flash and applets. Afair NPAPI plugins can access all native resources (which is the reason why the security sucked so much), HTML5 obviously can't. E. g. runtime code generation isn't particularly usable in WASM, so no JIT other than browser JIT for you. Then there are stuff like WebUSB/WebNFC/WebSerial that Mozilla killed. Not that they didn't have good reasons to do so, but having a native-exposing plugin system (with some friction, don't just install anything with a click) would have covered most of the use cases without being that much of a privacy problem. | | |
| ▲ | PurpleRamen 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Then there are stuff like WebUSB/WebNFC/WebSerial that Mozilla killed. Ah, true, Chrome has it, but Firefox not. Coincidental, some weeks ago I had to use this, worked well, and is another reason to always have an alternative browser around. Yes, Mozilla should work to at least fix that stuff. | | |
| ▲ | tliltocatl 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | AFAIR Mozilla is firmly against introducing new stuff that could be used for fingerprinting and that was their (and Apple's) rationale for not implementing it. That's a noble goal for sure, but peripheral access is a genuinely useful feature now that the Web had become the de-facto standard application platform. You don't like JS having access to everything - fine, but than we need some other way to do this (without porting everything to native). | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake an hour ago | parent [-] | | > now that the Web had become the de-facto standard application platform. I feel like we can continue to resist this, although I admit it's getting more and more futile every year. It's like trying to hold back the tide. I personally don't want the web to be an application platform. The web is for browsing web pages. I have an application platform on my computer already. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | close04 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > and not really that harmful in itself Unless you can't afford the split focus. If Mozilla can do 1 thing right or 2 things half-assed, and it looks like this is the case, they should stop and focus on strengthening the core before hanging more stuff around it. | | |
| ▲ | PurpleRamen 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | They have enough money to split their focus, sugar daddy Google is providing it. | | |
| ▲ | close04 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I didn't mean it just in terms of money. We can see they don't have the ability to deliver on both fronts so maybe start with one, the more important core of the browser. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | HeckFeck 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Every browser developer should be forced to take an annual pilgrimage to this gravestone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flock_(web_browser) |
| |
| ▲ | baggachipz 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 1. Take normal browser 2. Shoehorn flavor-of-the-week web-based over-hyped thing into browser "natively" 3. ??? 4. Profit! |
|
|
| ▲ | forephought4 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 5 step plan for Mozilla to succeed against the Behemoth Googzilla and the leviathans of MAWS. 1. build a team in Europe to create an email service comparable to gmail/protonmail - domains: mozmail.com, mmail.com, godmail.com, pmail.com, dogmail.com, meowmail.com - promoted as a simple everyday email – no overly complicated/advanced federati features in order to increase inter-operability, reduce spam and dealing with federalism - for more advanced features, integration links with something like signal, or a hosted comms platform 2. invest heavily in Firefox core development and service features - push for system resource and performance optimizations, even if it requires extensive architectural changes - focus on perfecting a core browser experience then developing an extension API that allows a level of UI customisations that XUL did, have unsafe/hackers warning for any extension that uses this API, even official ones - invest in KeePassXC ux and integrate it as a first class and core feature in Firefox that is useable by hackers, consumers and enterprises – offer paid services for simple database sync/backup, as well as a decent managed solution for enterprise. 3. Expand further with a suite of other services that have both self-hosted and paid management extras - calendar and email client, universally usable between providers, but first class with Firefox and mmail. - integrate something like libreoffice into a desktop client that can also be embedded into a Firefox tab. - straight forward self-hostable teams communication platform, managed cloud versions also availabe - self-hosted / managed file storage platform with web UI with integration links to other services - all of the above require a unified web, desktop and mobile ux - offer further software and hardware integrations to completely streamline personal digital management 4. Extensive marketing and brand exposure over TV and social media, while staying charitably non-profit and recognizing the digital roots - Use the firefox, gecko and other digital animals as icons - Themes and scapes from origins such as mosaic/netscape 5. In this scene Mozilla continues knocking down the buildings of the titans. |
| |
| ▲ | jasonlotito an hour ago | parent [-] | | It's funny how you post this comment under a comment that says no to all but 2.1 and 2.2. > The problem is that Mozilla keeps jumping on fads instead of focusing on their browser core. |
|
|
| ▲ | braiamp 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The problem is that Mozilla keeps jumping on fads instead of focusing on their browser core No, the problem is that Mozilla needs money if they want to stop leaning off Google, and people are simply too blind by their hatred of AI that doesn't figure out that Mozilla needs money. What is giving shit loads of money right now? A-fucking-I. If their investors portfolio doesn't include AI on their products, nobody will give them even a second look, much less the funds they need. Mozilla isn't jumping on fads, it's jumping towards were money is. You want Mozilla to stop doing that? Guarantee their moneis flow. Otherwise, you are a consumer of a free product and you don't get to decide how the free product gets financed. Luckily for you, they haven't decided to make _you_ the product. |
| |
| ▲ | tliltocatl 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And how exactly is the AI going to give Mozilla money? I mean not investor money, but actual profit? By alienating their moat userbase (privacy-minded technies)? Because if not for the AI haters, nobody would care about Firefox __at all__. Funding end-user-facing FOSS is hard. An OS kernel or a DMBS can count on corporations that need new features providing funding. A browser can't. But then if small individual donations aren't enough for them (I think there's still no way to donate to Firefox directly?) they don't have a product. | |
| ▲ | estimator7292 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Mozilla could instead stop giving all the google money to a CEO who only knows how to say "me too! AI too!" Maybe hire some engineers instead? | |
| ▲ | zdragnar 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | A-fucking-I doesn't make the product better. Mozilla constantly runs in every direction other than what their core users want or need. > You want Mozilla to stop doing that? Guarantee their moneis flow. Sure, just as soon as they sell something a privacy focused user of a browser wants. Privacy focused password management built into Firefox with paid sync or enterprise integration. Privacy focused paid email hosting, works great with Thunderbird. Had they done any of this back in the day, I'd gladly have paid for it and trusted them over smaller names or Google. I'm sure they're getting lots of money to throw around playing with the new shiny, but that's not going to keep their users, or keep them happy. They lost a ton of market share when the browser was slow as an old dog and chrome came on the scene, but they didn't do nearly enough to make up for it. |
|
|
| ▲ | godelski 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The problem is not AI. The problem is that Mozilla keeps jumping on fads instead of focusing on their browser core
Nah, the problem is people just want to hate on Mozilla. I mean even that Mastadon thread they bring up people hating on Mozilla for accepting crypto donations and are equating it to putting a miner in the browser. Like what a fucking joke. It's such a crazy exaggeration of what actually happened. Company just adds new way for people to give them money (which they desperately need) and then everyone gets upset.How is this not laughable? Now we're seeing a similar thing. Everyone is talking about fucking LLMs. What, do you think FF is going to start shipping a 100GB browser? Even Llama-8B is >15GB. That would be ridiculous! No, what FF is doing is implementing features like Translate (an ALREADY opt-in feature[0]) and semantic search. Seriously, go to their Labs tab! They let you opt in to try a feature to semantically search your browser history. That's not an LLM, that's a vector embedding model! What are they going to do next? Semantic search of a webpage? Regex search?! Even in their announcement the other day they mention the iOS "shake to summarize" and that's not even an AI they're shipping it's just a shortcut to Apple Intelligence. The only other thing they've announced is what already exists, a shortcut to use your chatbot of choice. That's not AI in the browser it is literally a split window. | Mozilla is not going to train its own giant LLM anytime soon.[1]
> having a faint through about removing adblock support
Don't be so fucking disingenuous.They said literally the opposite[1] | At some point, though, Enzor-DeMeo will have to tend to Mozilla’s own business. “I do think we need revenue diversification away from Google,” he says, “but I don’t necessarily believe we need revenue diversification away from the browser.” It seems he thinks a combination of subscription revenue, advertising, and maybe a few search and AI placement deals can get that done. He’s also bullish that things like built-in VPN and a privacy service called Monitor can get more people to pay for their browser. He says he could begin to block ad blockers in Firefox and estimates that’d bring in another $150 million, but he doesn’t want to do that. It feels off-mission.
That's not even a quote from him, that's a summarization of their conversation and it literally says that removing ad blockers is against their mission.Literally the opposite of what you're suggestion. Sorry, people just want to hate on Firefox. Look, if anyone wants to be a power user there's nothing Firefox is doing from stopping them from using a fork like Mullvad or Waterfox. Those are going to keep all these AI features out. So what do we privacy maximalists care? The forks give us exactly what we want. Meanwhile we're just attacking the last line of defense against Google (Chromium) taking over the internet? How fucking stupid are we? We're eating our cake and what, complaining that the baker's hands aren't made of gold? It's just laughable at how much we love shooting ourselves in the foot here. We've been playing this same stupid fucking game for years and watching Chrome take more and more market share. Let FF be the browser for the masses and use a fucking fork if you care about true Scottsmen. It takes literally no technical skill to click download on a different webpage. Seriously, this is so fucking dumb. I'm just going to link this from further down the main post. The two toots summarize it well[2] [0] You literally have to download the translation models! [1] https://www.theverge.com/tech/845216/mozilla-ceo-anthony-enz... (https://archive.is/20251217170357/https://www.theverge.com/t...) [2] https://mastodon.social/@nical@mastodon.gamedev.place/115741... |
| |
| ▲ | conartist6 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I agree that the forks are the pressure release valves here. Would strongly consider switching to a fork myself. But still I'm just wrenched by the dissonance in what new-CEO-guy said. 5 years ago or so I reported a serious bug in pointer events. If you move the mouse less than 1px the browser 5-10% of the time Firefox reports to JS that the you moved the cursor ~400pixels up and to the right or left. Honestly this bug isn't super high impact for the web as a whole, but anyone who uses pointer events needs to work around it by smoothing the input stream. They confirmed the bug in their tracker and there it has sat for five years with no activity while the browser behaves in violation of the contract between the user and the web platform, putting an extra stumbling block in the way of every web application that allows drawing on screen with the mouse cursor. To me, an issue like that is the canary in the coal mine, and the canary is dead. There's only a few reasons I can think of to leave a perfectly-reproduceable issue like that sitting for five years: 1) you don't have the energy for it, probably because so many other things are on fire 2) you don't see any value in having the trust of your users. or 3) your code is so fucked up inside that there's just no hope of figuring out why a half-pixel movement triggers a mouse would do something insane like trigger a mouse event 400 pixels away. So now this new CEO guy comes along and says "we've lost people's trust." Wow, I think to myself, he really gets it!" Then he says: "to get trust back, our top priority will be working on AI features." WHAT THE FUCK WHYYYYY!?!? Did you not literally just say you recognized that you had lost people's trust? Did you think that people didn't trust you because you hadn't tasked every engineer that wants to be able to get a promotion to work on AI!? | | |
| ▲ | godelski 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Then he says: "to get trust back, our top priority will be working on AI features." WHAT THE FUCK WHYYYYY!?!?
I don't think adding a fucking shortcut to ChatGPT is "top priority" or even time consuming.Did you even look at what they're calling "AI Mode" in that link? They call it "AI Window". It's the same fucking thing as the window where you can opt in to using chatbots. That's nowhere near the same thing as pushing AI on us | | |
| |
| ▲ | mr_machine 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > people just want to hate on Firefox While that may describe a few people, I don't think it fairly characterizes the backlash at all. I want to love on Firefox. I've been using it since before it was "Firefox." I've championed it among co-workers and friends tirelessly. But over time, Firefox has become more and more unlovable, getting softer on privacy, altering settings in updates, foisting 'experiments' off on us, and now this AI nonsense. I'm part of a large makerspace and have watched their market share dwindle among the nerds. Virtually no one is left. | | |
| ▲ | godelski 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I don't think it fairly characterizes the backlash at all.
People are saying LLMs are being forced on them. That's just not true. So yeah, I'm sticking with what I said.Again, FF added shortcuts to the 5th most popular site in the world. So what. They also have shortcuts to Google, Bing, Wikipedia, and a bunch of other sites with their bangs. The split window for the chatbot sites? That's barely any bloat and you're not forced to use that. Nor is it even close to shipping you an LLM. And the translate is completely opt-in. You have to fucking download the translations! They also aren't LLMs. They're like 50MB lol. But they're opt-in! > foisting 'experiments' off on us
The Mr Robot thing? Hell yeah I was pissed about that. And that's a legitimate reason to be pissed. But have they tried that again? If they learned they learned and let's move on (even with extra caution).But if we're grabbing pitchforks for fiction then why should they care when we grab pitchforks for reality? Literally boy who cries wolf situation here and that's why I'm calling it laughable. Just as it is laughable when the OP doubled down and called the accepting of crypto donations like wearing a swastika. It is just ridiculously disingenuous and delegitimizes any serious complaints. So it is entirely counterproductive. I'll save my pitchfork when the bullshit becomes real, not when the bullshit is based on flimsy rumors and egregious mischaracterizations. That's a witch hunt, and I don't want any part of that. |
| |
| ▲ | tliltocatl 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > money (which they desperately need) True. But crypto is bad publicity and everyone knows it. At that point it's no better than going out wearing a swastika sign (sorry, Poe's law triggered) and saying it's an ancient Buddhist symbol. > No, what FF is doing is implementing features like Translate (an ALREADY opt-in feature[0]) and semantic search Did you read my comment? The problem is that this takes focus away from the browser core. Why did they kill Servo? Were are XUL API replacements that were promised? The AI fluff could have been an extension - and that would keep everyone happy. > It feels off-mission. Than he doesn't need to talk about it at all. Unless that's a vibe check that's it. Somebody already posted an xkcd of it, I'm just doubling: https://xkcd.com/463/ > We're eating our cake and what, complaining that the baker's hands aren't made of gold? Unfortunately it's pretty hard to define where "hand aren't made of gold" stops and "gotta call a HAZMAT decontamination team" starts. > Meanwhile we're just attacking the last line of defense against Google (Chromium) taking over the internet? The thing is: Google started as "don't be evil" as well. It didn't lasted because of inherit incentives issue. And so if Mozilla is the last line of defense it'd better have some distinguishing features other than "we are not google". Because if they keep focusing on "average user" (btw it's my firm belief that the said user doesn't exist outside management's heads) their incentives wouldn't be any different. > So what do we privacy maximalists care? The forks give us exactly what we want. That's what I'm doing personally. But the forks barely have resources to remove the crap, yet alone implement new features. | | |
| ▲ | godelski 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > it's no better than going out wearing a swastika sign
Come on, I'm far from a crypto fanboy but this is just making my case. It's incredibly egregious. You can call crypto a bullshit fad loved by scammers without saying anyone that accepts it is a Nazi.I don't see anyone getting all up in arms about the Wayback Machine, The EFF, or plenty of others who accept cryptocurrencies as payments. And again, to equate it to shipping a miner in the browser is BEYOND EGREGIOUS. It is nothing short of laughable. > Than he doesn't need to talk about it at all.
We don't know the full context since it is summarized. Maybe he was explicitly asked. But honestly I read it as a bad joke along the lines of "we could be evil and greedy if we really wanted money, but we're not." But I don't know how you can read what was actually written as anything remotely close to suggesting they might even consider blocking ad blockers. At best it is making mountains out of mole hills but even that is being generous to your interpretation. > The thing is: Google started as "don't be evil" as well.
This is irrelevant at this point. At this point it doesn't matter if Mozilla is evil. It doesn't matter if Mozilla is more evil than Google. Mozilla has little to no power to capitalize on that evil. But Google does. And whatever the situation is, Google having competition and being tied up from implementing evil is a good thing. In the worst situation, assuming Mozilla is more evil than Google (lol), it buys us more time for another player who isn't evil to enter the space and gain browser market share. But if we let Google kill Firefox then that 3rd player is going to have a much harder barrier to entry.So yeah, I'm sticking with laughable. Because all you're accomplishing is handing market share to Google. All you're doing is repeating the same thing that's been happening for years. Crypto, AI, whatever, it is the same thing. People grab their pitchforks to go after Mozilla at the slightest misstep and do nothing as Google tramples all over causing more damage than an evil Mozilla could even imagine. It is laughable. | | |
| ▲ | tliltocatl 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > This is irrelevant at this point. At this point it doesn't matter if Mozilla is evil. It doesn't matter if Mozilla is more evil than Google. Mozilla has little to no power to capitalize on that evil. I guess that's where we disagree a lot. If Google monopolizes the web completely, it'll end up with the web dying as a relevant platform. Just like it happened with Win32 (sure, after a decade or so of constant suffering), just like it happened to minis&mainframes. Because, let's face it, being a platform monopolist isn't very profitable unless you are screwing the developers and users so hard they'll jump on the first opportunity. And it's not like the web isn't worth saving as it is now, but it is not worth saving if it is going to turn into corporate crap. > . People grab their pitchforks to go after Mozilla at the slightest misstep and do nothing as Google tramples all over causing more damage than an evil Mozilla could even imagine. It is laughable. People expect a lawnmower to chop off their hands if they stick one into it. People don't expect a nonprofit declaring their dedication to freedoms to chop their hands off - and not even single fingers. Yes, declaring moral superiority means you will be judged a lot. | |
| ▲ | mapontosevenths 30 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > You can call crypto a bullshit fad loved by scammers without saying anyone that accepts it is a Nazi. I'm actually mostly on your side in this debate, but to clarify that's not actually what I think they were saying here. I think they were talking about folks who argue that the swastiki was a Buddhist symbol first so it's fine to wear it in public... They aren't technically wrong they're just assholes. He was comparing that attitude to folks who endorse crypto, not literally calling them Nazi's. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | echelon 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > people screaming "but AI is the future" I witnes far more people screaming against AI. The media started kicking this off in 2021, 2022. It blossomed into a fully distributed, organic, memetic device from there. It has a life of its own now. Children and young people are practically indoctrinated if you look at social media comments. I was invited to give lectures to several art schools about using Blender, Unreal Engine, and mocap software with diffusion models. The students weren't very polite. Most of the "questions" I got at each of the campuses were simply statements of affirmation about how much they hate AI. Good looking and well-reviewed indie games that incorporate AI elements or tools are dumped on by these folks. It's like butting into conversations to say something bad about AI scores points or something. > Mozilla keeps jumping on fads Agreed on this point, though. They're rudderless. And Google is probably quite happy about the fact that their antitrust litigation sponge can't steal away their users. |
| |
| ▲ | PunchyHamster 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I witnes far more people screaming against AI. If you shove it into people's faces, they will have knee jerk reaction and hate it. If the AI industry didn't desperately try to push it in every possible way in desperate bid to be profitable and it was just a thing that slowly gets better and is value added, not a nagging push, there would be far less of that. But companies like MS have idea of consent of average rapist and will not even give option "no, I don't want copilot in teams", there is only "add it now" or "remind later" | | |
| ▲ | pjc50 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "AI" is the technology that makes your computers and electricity more expensive, while slowly ruining the authenticity of everything you come across on the internet. I saw a sad post on bsky today about how the joy of animal behavior videos has been destroyed for that poster, because they can no longer be sure if it's real or just a fake. | |
| ▲ | m4rtink 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Add to that various hardware shortages caused by the AI mania or more examples of AI missuse and I wonder where we might end up eventually if people will get even angrier. | | |
| ▲ | ruszki 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’m quite sure that these shortages aren’t caused by mania, but oligopolies, and unpredictable countries. In undistorted markets, these should be way shorter. A year, or two maximum. At least that what supply side told us in 2020, and early 2021. It seems and predictions also say, that the shortages are with us long term. It’s even more telling that some companies leave markets where these “shortages” are, ie huge profit margins. |
|
| |
| ▲ | tliltocatl 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you keep shoveling a thing to people who don't care, you'll get tons of irrational pushback no matter how the good this thing is. And AI isn't even particularly good. | |
| ▲ | ehnto 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is a clear substance behind the pushback on AI in creative work, and it would be foolish to dismiss it as irrational. You might be missing the forest for the trees if you focus too much in implementation details, the dislike for is AI is a bit deeper than that. | | |
| ▲ | tliltocatl 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | On the other hand, it also sometimes feels as if some "old media" journalists see AI as a convenient target to avenge the tech sector for disrupting them. Not that it makes AI slop any less sloppy. |
| |
| ▲ | diputsmonro 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I wonder why nobody wants to use my pretty theft machine? I mean, it steals all their work and spits out copies that are almost as good, and almost for free! Why aren't these artists stoked about not having to do art anymore? Well, I guess it does use more energy than every existing data center, driving up costs for basic electronic components and thereby making every electronic device more expensive. And I guess the results aren't quite as good, but if you squint and don't really care about art on a human level and just want to clap like a seal at the pretty pictures then it's enough. And I guess economic forces will mean that some of them will lose their jobs when their bosses realize that they can get away with only needing half as many prompt artists. But hey, at least we don't have to pay humans to make art anymore. How glorious that our Silicon Valley gods have delivered us from the hell of creating economic incentives for humans to express themselves to other humans. Yeah, those screaming, "indoctrinated" artists are so impolite and crazy, aren't they? Don't they realize what we've done for them? We made the automatic art machine! They'll never get to make art again! | |
| ▲ | epgui 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > simply statements of affirmation about how much they hate AI I wonder what that might mean! |
|
