It objectively did, but that is beside the point. If they’re getting some of the lost customers back by adding “gemeni overview” then they they’re justified. There’s no point in cooking michelin star level food if your customers mostly go to KFC.

Why defend them when they’ve shown nothing but contempt for their customers?

Because I don’t want to let hate blind me to a reasonable opinion.

To be fair, Google has lost a lot of business to ChatGPT & friends who are not offering a list of actual content associated with the search at all. Hate Google as much as you want and I’m sure most of it is warranted, but they’re not completely evil in this case

Gimp. You’re a much better person than me. I always found the gimp learning curve way too steep for me

Who is “you”? How can the general public get organized?

I think there’s an important semantic difference between worse performance and correctness. Tools, like AI, can underperform when compared to humans and still be very useful and worth investing into, but that’s only as long as they perform correctly.

The neat part is that we can’t even claim that they’re little mistakes or that there’s few of them.

That’s such a bad argument too. The whole point of technology is to help perfect the output of humans. Why would we buy technology that is known to not do that

It already exists, lots of institutions people work with know way more than just their age. They could really provide an anonymous way of validating someone’s age without divulging their identity. This can also be done in such a way that the verification provider doesn’t know the requester either so they don’t have a way of tracking user habits

This isn’t surprising, 20% of the world’s supply of literally anything would have profound impacts with how tightly coupled the world supply chain is. When that resource is a basic need such as petrol, things tend to become dramatic quite quicly

Not for me. Looks like CNN it’s not free everywhere. Interesting.

Here you go

since when is war an internal affair?

They weren’t their “normal lives”. People were affected by the rule of the nazi party since it very quickly installed a new social order in the country. We shouldn’t think that the move of the country towards violent totalitarianism happened without people noticing.

But just like now, the future wasn’t obvious. If you could have convinced people in 1932 that the nazi party world start WW2, they wouldn’t have voted for it. If you could have convinced them in 1935 that not only will they be anther world war, but their nation would try and almost succeed in exterminating various peoples from their own country, people world have violently rebelled and deposed the nazis, but that wasn’t obvious. It wasn’t obvious even in 1938 - “peace for our time”, eh? So people did grudgingly accepted what was happening while completely misunderstanding the seriousness of the situation.

There is no way around this. It will happen again and again and there is no way to prevent it because this shift from a strong democracy to authoritarianism is so impossible to believe that people will rather go by their preconceptions rather than the evidence in front of them and simply refuse to think something like this can actually happen.

This is why it isn’t reasonable to expect the people to simply take to the streets. We need leadership

that would likely turn on him in a heart beat.

Again, what happens to him personally or to Facebook as a company is irrelevant when it comes to how our lives are affected. The regulation of social platforms is good for society regardless of the efect regulation has on the owners or the companies owning the platforms.

Your argument is built around the wrong desirable outcome.

A minority that probably hates his guts.

How is this relevant to us? The subject here is about the platform’s influence on society, not of Zuckerberg.

Google AI suggested you put glue on your pizza because a troll said it on Reddit once…

Genuine question: do you know that’s what happened? This type of implementation can suggest things like this without it having to be in the training data in that format.

Yes, thank you! I think this should be written in capitals somewhere so that people could understand it quicker. The answers are not wrong or right on purpose. LLMs don’t have any way of distinguishing between the two.

immediately move on to even more anti consumer ways

but they’ll keep collecting that data even after the slap on the wrist which will be more like a gentle tap

I’m saying musk has never believed in the free market in his life and has never argued in good faith.

isn’t this the definition of hypocrisy?

I think that what you’re saying is that actions of hypocrites cannot be considered hypocritical since it’s their nature to be hypocrites. It’s all a bit circular, isn’t it?

I think that in the case of Mr. Musk, the issue is that he has been seen as an innovator not just as a capitalist for much of his time in the spotlight. For 2018 Musk, this declaration would have been hypocritical. For 2024 Musk, whatever, why are we still listening to this clown?