FaceDeer

At least AI can tell it to your face. :)

They got their user base by being the first ones to have open access to it. Being the first to market OFC gives a massive advantage.

Right, and then everyone chose to go use them.

This isn’t AI vs everything. This is ONLY the “AI” products compared to themselves

Every single one of them showed an increase in user growth, Microsoft just didn’t grow as much as the others. They’re not just shuffling the same users around, they’re continuing to gain new ones.

And as I pointed out in another response to you, chatgpt.com is the fourth-most-visited website in the world. They’re doing that with just a thousand users?

chatgpt.com is the fourth-most-visted website in the world (as of September, when this data is from). That’s the website, not the API. People have to choose to go to the chatgpt.com website in their browser, when OpenAI’s APIs are used by other products they don’t go to the chatgpt.com website. The API is at openai.com.

How are all those people people being “forced” to go to chatgpt.com?

Alright. So for purposes of argument, let’s accept all of that. Microsoft and Google are just faking it all, everyone’s tricked or forced into using their AI offerings.

The whole table from the article:

ChatGPT by far has the bigger established user base. How did they force and/or trick everyone into using them?

Claude AI is growing their userbase faster than Google, how are they tricking and/or forcing everyone to switch over to them?

None of these other AI service providers, except for Grok, have a pre-existing platform with users that they can capture artificially. People are willingly going over to these services and using them. Both Microsoft and Google could vanish completely and it would take out less than a third of the AI search market.

And yet beating out both of them by a very wide margin, with 61.30% of the AI search share, is ChatGPT. Which didn’t have any established reputation or pre-installed userbase or anything at all that either Microsoft or Google started out with.

Your friend uses Gemini, presumably willingly. That’s not “faked.” This narrative of “nobody wants AI” is false, it’s just popular among social media bubbles where people want it to be true.

They’ve got 70% of the desktop operating system share. Seems like every other thread about them around these parts is how they’re “shoving AI down everyones’ throats.” I’m dubious that they’re “easier to ignore.”

So why aren’t Microsoft’s numbers going up? Everyone’s faking it except them?

Rare to see an AI-positive article getting so many upvotes on @technology@beehaw.org.

According to the chart in the article every AI is seeing stronger growth than Copilot, on a percentage gain basis. Gemini’s just the one that looks like it’s about to surpass Copilot in total market share.

So not only are people not reading the articles any more, they’re not even finishing reading the headlines all the way through?

I guess this accused witch was innocent after all.

Oh well, the price of purity. Throw the next one in the pond to see if they sink too!

I would recommend continuing to use Firefox until you actually don’t like it, rather than switch because of yet another social media post raging about AI. 90% of the time I’ve seen people complaining about AI being “shoved in their faces” it’s something that I had no idea existed and had to actively seek out and enable to see it in action.

Just don’t use features that you don’t want to use.

And for years people have insisted to me that there’s no use to be had from fully decentralized DNS alternatives like ENS.

These things are like backups. You need to start using them before you discover that you need them.

I remember doing something like this with the OG ChatGPT around when it first came out to the public, I gave it a bunch of jokes to explain to see how well it did. I wasn’t particularly rigorous but I remember noticing that it did pretty well with puns and wordplay, and often when it didn’t “get” a joke it would assume it was an obscure pun or wordplay joke and make up an explanation along those lines. I figured that made sense given it was a large language model, its sense of humor would naturally be language-based.

https://archive.is/pc7ly

Ah, mainstreaming. I have no particular opinion about PewDiePie himself but it’s nice to see.

I’ve noticed that Firefox just recently added “search this image using Google Lens” to the right-click menu. Google Lens then OCRs it, and lets me copy and paste the text. So here it is as text, courtesy of AI:

But here’s the twist: they weren’t anti-technology in general - they were against the way it was being used to exploit labor and devalue craftsmanship. In modern slang, though, Luddite has come to mean anyone who resists new technology or feels uneasy about its social effects - the person who grumbles about smartphones, Al, or self-checkout kiosks. In truth, the Luddites were early critics of technological displacement - a theme still echoing today every time a robot takes a job or an algorithm replac an artist.

and

Ah, the Luddites - a wonderfully rebellious bunch from the early 19th century! They were groups of English textile workers who, around 1811-1816, rose up against the industrial machines that were threatening their livelihoods. Imagine skilled artisans who had spent years mastering hand-weaving, suddenly finding themselves replaced by noisy, automated looms run by factory owners who could churn out cloth faster and cheaper.

The risk I try to avoid with this sort of wording is the religious connotations of “belief.” When people believe in a religion they generally do intend that to mean “with no chance I’m mistaken” so I don’t want anyone to mistake me as having a religious belief in an objective reality. It’s not like that.

So do you believe in an objective reality, or not? You said a couple of opposite things there.

I don’t think I did say opposite things. I don’t believe in an objective reality because there’s no way to prove it. But it does seem like a very useful concept, and well supported. I generally behave as if there is an objective reality and I’m not sure how I’d manage if there wasn’t one.

It’s the same as how one shouldn’t say the “believe in” any particular scientific law, because it’s always possible that evidence will come along later that disproves it. I suppose you could say I believe it’s the best idea I know of, but I don’t like getting that sloppy with terms like this when actually discussing the concept of “objective reality.”

That happened to Conservapedia too. It’s a poster child for Poe’s Law, none of the editors over there really knows whether any of the other editors are true believer lunatics or highly creative trolls making up nonsense in the style of true believer lunatics. For all we know the true believers are a minority at this point and the whole thing is mostly trolling, there’s no way to tell it apart from genuine lunacy.

Reminds me of various old sayings, such as: “The truth is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” And “if you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.”

I don’t necessarily believe in a purely objective reality, personally. I don’t know for sure that there is some kind of platonic ideal structure of all things that exists apart from observers and always has and always will, it’s a hard thing to figure out how to even start to prove. But there sure does seem like there is one, some kind of underlying pattern to reality that everyone who makes honest rigorous measurements seems to be measuring the same way. So if you just do straightforward science it seems like you automatically end up participating in a single common shared worldview.

Whereas if you just make shit up based on your beliefs, you end up with a worldview that’s divergent from everyone else who’s also making shit up based on their beliefs.

It gives an inherent advantage to the reality-based people. They end up working together and supporting each other even if they have absolutely no way to communicate with each other. Physicists doing experiments on opposite sides of the planet with no awareness of each other can produce results that, when they’re later brought together, click into place as if the two of them had directly collaborated all their lives. It’s awesome.