It's a specific process, though. It's the pattern of decreasing quality of online platforms that act as two-sided markets. Dungeons and Dragons doesn't have that sort of structure, and that's not the sort of quality decrease that the people who are using "enshittification" are talking about.
I'm not harmed by someone making billions based in some tiny way on a bit of text I wrote once upon a time. It doesn't take any money away from me, and I couldn't have used that text to do it myself so I'm not missing out. And I get to use those AIs, too, which I am already finding is improving my life significantly.
Worrying about being "caught up in capitalism" on the one hand, and then later in the same sentence wanting to be paid for idle conversation with your fellow man?
I'm really starting to get a bit worried about this seemingly increasing assumption that every single little particle of our lives needs to be monetized. People fret about how a few words the write on some random social media site might end up being used to train an AI, that might end up being used to do some little task, that ends up being worth a pittance to someone. "Where's the fraction of a pittance that I am entitled to?" People demand. "I'm going to use scripts to delete all my old comments, I'm going to switch to different social media platforms, I'll quit posting on the Internet entirely if I can't get my fraction of a pittance!"
Whatever happened to just doing stuff because it was fun, or because being helpful was the right thing to do, and not worrying about how to prevent other people from somehow making a sliver of a penny off of it without recompense? Why care that someone might be able to find some way to make a tiny little bit of money off of it?
Those products exist. There are plenty of AI products that don't involve ads at all, you pay for a service that uses AI to help do whatever it is the service is about (for example GitHub Copilot). There are open source products that give you those services for free, even.
Some people use those services to create advertising, but it's not like advertising is the only field that this stuff is useful for.
I downvoted it because it's racism out of nowhere. Whether you're being pro-racist or ironically anti-racist hardly matters, it's just an unwelcome and unwarranted jump to this subject that nobody cared about.
That's a common way of putting down 4e, but it's not so. I have no interest whatsoever in WoW but I really liked 4e. 4e's approach was to build a very consistent and rigorously-defined framework for the game, and then build its various elements (classes, monsters, abilities, etc.) strictly within that framework. I think it actually hit a very nice sweet spot; the framework was sufficiently flexible that a huge amount of interesting and distinctive content could be made, but it was also well-defined enough and simple enough to understand and apply that everything "just worked." You could play as a fighter for a whole bunch of levels and then pick up a completely different character sheet for a wizard and you'd find that most of the mechanics worked the same. Combat was very positional, with lots of abilities that allowed you to set other players up for success, which encouraged teamwork and player interaction.
It annoys me greatly that WotC tried to set the system up to be dependent on their online tools, failed, and then tore the tools down to leave the wreckage largely unplayable. I can still play a 3.5e campaign just as easily as I did back in the day but it'd be rather hard to play 4e as easily even though I still have the books. The best tools were WotC-owned and they don't allow third parties to fill the void they left when they decided to transition to 5e - presumably to avoid another Pathfinder situation.
Sure, but that doesn't mean we can't complain about the directions the fluid is flowing. In this case a specialized term for something that didn't previously have a popular term describing it has been rapidly diluted to mean "bad change I don't like." So that thing doesn't have a specialized term any more, which hampers discourse.
You're not going to stop hearing about AI. Perhaps AI companies won't be so high-profile, but AI itself is being integrated into lots of things and it's not going to go away. The only thing that's happened here is that it's proving to be not quite so profitable as expected being an AI-specific company.
Edit: Perhaps not even that, the article appears to be neglecting to mention that this is part of a trend across the whole stock market rather than something AI-specific.
The term "artificial intelligence" has been in use in this field for a very long time now, applying to a broad range of techniques. Some of them much, much more primitive than the LLMs and such that are revolutionizing the field currently. There is nothing wrong with using AI to refer to them.
Sounds like the problem is with our economic system. There are ways to fix that. Even ways to fix "capitalism" so that it isn't necessary, without changing the fundamental concepts of freedom and personal property that people are so worried about.
The author shares his experience at the Consumer Electronics Show, where he watched a keynote speech for the Rabbit R1, an AI gadget that acts as a personal assistant.
The Rabbit R1 can create a “digital twin” of the user, which can directly utilize all of your apps so that you, the person, don’t have to.
The author expresses concern about the lack of information on how the Rabbit will interact with these apps and how secure the user’s data will be.
The author also discusses the trend of AI assistants like Microsoft’s Copilot, which can perform a variety of tasks, potentially replacing human effort.
The author emphasizes that there’s nothing inherently wrong with AI technology, but expresses concern about the potential risks and implications of its misuse.
It's a specific process, though. It's the pattern of decreasing quality of online platforms that act as two-sided markets. Dungeons and Dragons doesn't have that sort of structure, and that's not the sort of quality decrease that the people who are using "enshittification" are talking about.