Lvxferre [he/him]

Lukewarm.

If I can install the program from a .deb I’ll do it, even if it’s outdated in comparison with the flatpak version. But if there’s only a flatpak version I’ll use it.

Before I even read the article, let me guess:

1. it keeps Google under control of everything, giving it power to kick out competitors on a whim
2. it claims it’s “to protect those disgusting pieces of shit called users from causing themselves harm”
3. it claims Google did nothing wrong

Now, reading the article…

• “Google has denied any wrongdoing throughout the closely watched litigation.” - that’s #3 right off the bat
• “Under the new proposal, Google would allow users to more easily download and install third-party app stores that meet new security and safety standards.” - who decides those standards? If Google itself, that’s #1
• Sameer Samat, Google’s president of Android Ecosystem, said, opens new tab on Tuesday the proposed changes maintained user safety - #2.

*Yawn*

Both letters in “AI” are bullshit. Most of us know about the “I”; the text is about the “A”.

I wonder if that isn’t exactly the goal behind all this shit.

“AI is providing high quality work,” she told Rest of World.

“High quality work” my arse dammit, it’s just the standards for the Brazilian justice system are so bloody low that a bloody chimp could do it better.

And I don’t even want to see when the AI model makes laws up on the spot, wasting further time of everyone.

[OP, sorry for the harsh words. They’re directed at the text and not towards you.]

To be blunt this “essay” is a pile of shit. It’s so bad, but so bad, that I gave up dissecting it. Instead I’ll list the idiocies = fallacies = disingenuous arguments it’s built upon:

• Nirvana idiocy = fallacy: “unless its perfect than its useless lol lmao”.
• Begging the question: being trained on [ipsis ungulis] “the entire corpus of human output” with enough money to throw at it won’t “magically” make AI output indistinguishable from human generated content.
• Straw man: if the author is going to distort the GPTZero FAQ, to double down on the nirvana idiocy, they should at least clip the quote further, to not make it so obvious. There’s a bloody reason the FAQ is focusing on punishment.

Note nirvana fallacy is so prevalent, but so prevalent, that once you try to remove it the text puffs into nothing. The whole text is built upon it. (I’m glad people developing anti-spam systems don’t take the same idiocy seriously, otherwise our mailboxes would be even worse than they already are.)