xor

Feeding people, sheltering the homeless, networking, and solidifying

Seems to me that not one of those is “demolishing deathcamps”, so by your argument those are all “just festivities”, no?

The thing you’re arguing here is entirely different to your original comment that the above commenter was arguing against.

I mean the Marshall plan more or less rebuilt the entirety of Europe…

Chezmoi with auto-push is the way

Technically, Greenland is a Danish autonomous territory

none of them help an average person*

*except the trains, vaccines, 2 new types of computation, cultured meat, wireless charging, stem cell treatments, neural interfaces, gene editing**

**and whatever unknown advances are unlocked by those and the other technologies

What am I, rainman? Regardless, I’m not sure what that has to do with whether “technology has peaked”

In the last ~10 years humanity has developed:

• electric cars
• mRNA vaccines
• cars that can (more or less drive themselves)
• convincing human language text/speech synthesis
• reusable space rockets
• precise gene editing
• prosthetics that directly connect to the nervous system
• robots that can walk across inconsistent terrain
• commercial quantum computing and quantum cryptography
• cultured meat
• biometrics
• computer vision
• virtual reality
• optical computing
• wireless charging
• stem cell treatments
• neural computer interfaces
• drones
• maglev trains

New technologies tend to have long lulls while being developed, followed by a rapid series of developments when those technologies become viable and in turn provide the base for new technologies.

Yeah, there’s always grifters and technologies that turn out to not be useful, but there’s also always tons of people working really hard to create new advances for the benefit of mankind. Capitalism is definitely flawed (understatement) but relative to say, feudalism, continues to be a very efficient way to allocate resources when used in a well managed economy.

Lol

So, to summarise, you have no actual evidence, you’re insulting me for not coming to the same conclusion you came to just based entirely on vibes?

Given that natural language interfaces are pretty ubiquitous (you almost certainly have Gemini/Google Assistant or Siri on your phone by default), I think “it’s self-evident” is not a compelling argument here

Okay, so would you like to now elaborate on what that research was, and why that research proves that it’s so impossible for me to be correct that it’s reasonable to call me an idiot? Or is it just the case that you hate AI, and thus merely thinking it’s possible that people may use it as a browser interface means I deserve to be insulted?

What an eloquent and well researched argument you’ve put forward

I think there’s some alt-text generation for websites that don’t have proper accessibility, though not certain if it’s released yet

Not entirely clear, but my best guess is that it will basically have an MCP implementation so that the browser can be controlled directly by an LLM

I think that’s basically what e.g. the chatgpt browser is. Despite the… hostile… response on the fediverse, I suspect it will end up being the way a lot of people interact with the internet in a few years.

The implementation challenge currently is that they’re extremely vulnerable to prompt injection.

That’s for startup ideas

The whole what? As in you think each Wikipedia article should start by describing every sound in the word?

Skeuomorph (sk like skin, eu like you, m like mat, o like orphan, ph like off)