ilinamorato @ ilinamorato @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

1,864

Joined

2 yr. ago

So far all of their ai stuff has been:

1. Accessibility features
2. A sidebar that you can put a third party AI into, which probably took an afternoon to code

I just don't get why people are upset that they're doing literally the bare minimum to grab headlines so that normies realize they're a legit browser.

Why are the capitalists so complainy?

"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps 😤, facts don't care about your feelings 😤, Apple is mean make them stop it 😭"

I mean, they are a close second. Meta is maintaining a comfortable lead, but give Twitter a few more Bluesky hemorrhage cycles.

More likely, it's calculated. The Linux Foundation probably did the math and realized that they could either participate in it, or watch Google run it themselves, packing the board with sycophants and leaving it with no real oversight.

This way, there's actually a trusted nonprofit voice in the room.

Also true!

Wait, are you calling me a "bootlicker?" When have I ever been anything but critical about the oligarchs running our society?

Yeesh. The Internet be wild, y'all.

Nah, you've got cause and effect flipped. Know what we used to do when sociopaths did too much sociopathic stuff? We made the sociopaths leave. Now they have too much money, so we can't effectively do that anymore.

Of course, yes, they did create that system. But they created it so that they could retain the benefits of the society without contributing to it meaningfully.

Something ain't right

Ah, I think what you're looking at there is called "capitalism." It's what enables selfish anti-social/sociopathic behavior without triggering our societal inclination to kick them out.

Civilizations, societies, communities. The Apollo program. The National Park Service. Emancipation. Everything good we're capable of as a species comes from working together.

The mass weaponization of it is, of course, a problem.

I don't believe it's unfalsifiable, its just fundamentally true. You cant observe yourself in any reality where you are incapable of onserving yourself.

As you note, it's the only logically-consistent framework through which to view the world we live in. But are there other ways in which the universe could've formed that we might be able to falsify it?

Imagine two universes, A and B. They're entirely disconnected and independent from one another; no matter or energy can flow in either direction, except that through some exotic process, a small window exists in universe A through which universe B can be observed without affecting it in any way (Heisenbergs HATE this!). Universe A is just as our own is, including our existence, with the single exception of this window. In universe B, however, the laws of physics do not permit carbon atoms to form in stars, so no sentient life has ever formed.

In those universes, then, the Anthropic Principle would be falsified; as the residents of Universe A could observe a universe in which they could not have arisen.

Or consider a Boltzmann Brain (or a simulated universe). Were we to discover that our existence was of either nature, that too would falsify the Anthropic Principle, as we are not actually observing a universe.

Anyway. It's not falsifiable in our reality, as far as we can tell. But we can imagine ways in which it could be falsifiable.

I've never heard of that name for it, though the "observation selection" principle might be what you're thinking of. They're synonyms.

It is a justification, actually, because other people are using it against them to extract value for themselves. Users of corporate social media are no more responsible for their addictions than alcoholics are. Some people break it, sure. And some people use it without developing an addiction. But those aren't the people we're talking about here.

And it served us well for millennia. In a lot of ways, it made us who we are.

I understand that logic, but "being the product" must not really be that bad for them. They might complain, but if it was truly distasteful, they'd do something about it.

And being exploited for profit and explicitly knowing it is about the saddest thing I can think of for my fellow humans. It's no wonder the billionaires just take and take, because people let them.

One may as well have said the same things about cigarettes up through the 1960s. Sometimes we do things against our best interests. Sometimes it's really, really bad for us. Sometimes it's painful and deadly.

Humans aren't rational creatures.

Will it only be seen as an alternative once a critical mass of users move there?

I mean, yeah? That's how social media works.

There's a principle, I can't remember the name of it, but basically it goes that the universe exists in such a way as to support life, because if it didn't, there would be no one around to discuss the ways in which the universe might have formed.

The Anthropic Principle. It's a mind-bender, especially because it's fundamentally unfalsifiable.

We don't really know what consciousness is, so we can't really be sure that it is subject to entropy.

I'm currently mid-migration from Windows to Linux, so I have to wait until the Windows release or until I finish migrating (I'm not really up for building a beta at this point), but I'm very excited.

You are probably correct. I mean, in reality neither is true until and unless the SCOTUS were to weigh in (so, just take a wild guess at what they'd choose?), but I would bet that's the justification they would use.

I'm keeping an eye on Zed: https://zed.dev/

Yeah, AI, whatever. It's written in Rust and looks pretty great.