

I didn’t. But I also can’t say I’ve been paying attention.


I didn’t. But I also can’t say I’ve been paying attention.


GiGo.


My main concerns are mostly to do with the fact that Google in my experience has always had the benefit of enticing software and services that are extremely invasive but also very convenient (even if we remove IoT from the table for a moment). This is mostly due to how invasive Google Play Services is, and how invasive the Google app has been since the first iterations of Google Assistant (Google Now). I’m concerned that even those of us who have done what we can to turn off Gemini and not use Generative AI are still compromised regardless because big tech has a choke hold on the services we use.
So I suppose I’m trying to understand what the differences are in how these two types of technology compromise cyber security.


Pre-Generative AI, lots of companies had AI/Algorithmic tools that posed a risk to personal cyber security (Google’s Assistant and Apple’s Siri, MS’s Cortana etc).
Is the stance here that AI is more dangerous than those because of its black box nature, it’s poor guardrails, the fact that it’s a developing technology, or it’s unfettered access?
Also, do you think that the “popularity” of Google Gemini is because people were already indoctrinated into the Assistant ecosystem before it became Gemini, and Google already had a stranglehold on the search market so the integration of Gemini into those services isn’t seen as dangerous because people are already reliant and Google is a known brand rather than a new “startup”.


It died a long long time before this. The enshittification directly started back in the early 2000’s when one of the owners basically usurped the whole company. Which of course lead to mods quitting en masse. After that it went downhill and that downhill trend continued. Then it got bought out by the Israeli’s, and the AI art injection was them trying to prevent the site from going under.
Nothing about the site is what it was.


It’s not clear that the except is a quote. No quotation marks. No vertical bar denoting quotation. The ellipses at the very start of the first sentence.


Generative AI LLM’S? No. GiGo Counters? Yes.


People who live in third world countries like the US who don’t have Internet at home/internet isn’t available to them because it’s not profitable for the company providing for that area.
And before you say phone, you have to have service to receive or make a phone call. There are places in this country that don’t have either.


On lower end smart phones? It probably just slows the phone down less specifically because of how few processes it uses in the background. But I don’t know. I’m not a lite UBO user. It definitely doesn’t have the same number of features as the regular variant of UBO though.


My guess is that it’s used predominantly by people who own budget smart phones. Having lite versions of apps be available to people who don’t use thousand dollar flagships I think is kind of important. However, I intended the post to be informational.
I agree with you in general, I think the problem is that people who do understand Gen AI (and who understand what it is and isn’t capable of, and why), get rationally angry when it’s humanized by using words like these to describe what it’s doing.
The reason they get angry is because this makes people who do believe in the “intelligence/sapience” of AI more secure in their belief set and harder to talk to in a meaningful way. It enables them to keep up the fantasy. Which of course helps the corps pushing it.