top 66 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 135 points 6 months ago

Reads: Our flagship operating system and services have gotten to the point of such terrible shite for humans that we need to pivot to a less discerning customer base.

  • source
  • [–] 95 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    If the AI Agent counts as an employee then the company "employing" it is liable for what it does.

    My guess is the argument will be that "it's a tool", not an employee, and therefore they take no responsibility. Though I'm sure that argument is not going to fly for very long. If your air hammer harms someone because the person operating it wasn't using it correctly, you're still liable.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    What? Companies aren't liable if the user doesn't follow the instructions or warnings and hurts themselves.

    DeWalt isn't liable because I was using their mini chainsaw while holding a branch with my bare hand and the saw bounced and cut me. I'm liable for being stupid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago

    I don't think you understand the context of the situation I was proposing. I am not supposing that DeWalt would be liable. But let's say we work in a shop together and I'm using an air hammer to I dunno. Punch rivets. If I as an employee of that shop use the air hammer and something involving the air hammer happens to my coworker or a customer or whatever, it is extremely likely that the company I work for would be on the hook. Could they try to penalize me personally? Yes. Could the person who was injured sue me personally? Certainly. Would the company be off the hook if the air hammer malfunctioned causing injury? Maybe - And at that point I would expect the manufacturer to be liable. But my comment never mentioned the manufacturer.

    The context was companies using AI as a tool not companies manufacturing AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    I don't see how this distinction affects the question of responsibility at all. If anything, "it's an employee" gives the company more room for deniability.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Lol. Ask Uber how the actions of their employees and contractors aren't their responsibility.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5y5w148p5o

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    "More room for deniability" doesn't mean "perfect universal deniability."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 70 points 6 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 15 points 6 months ago*

    The customers are already locked in by virtue of every company who is hoping to run the same rent seeking play around AI are buying up all of the compute and storage hardware on the planet which prices consumers out of everything except the soon-to-be-overpriced subscription service(s) that they offer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 49 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    MicroSlop: We have this AI for you to use so you can reduce workforce and associated costs

    Also Sloppy: j/k, fuck you pay me

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 42 points 6 months ago (1 child)
    1. Integrate AI into the OS
    2. Demand purchase of a Windows license for the AI in the OS
    3. GOTO 2

    It’s an infinite amount of money from every customer!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 29 points 6 months ago

    So the "amazing tool of the future" that's "going to make software developers obsolete" is also going to need to buy software licenses?

    Which one is it Microslop?

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    A house of cards built on top of ten other houses of cards. What could possibly go wrong.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 26 points 6 months ago*

    The natural extension of a non-open internet ala Reddit and charging developers for API pulls.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I have always hated the term "seats". Get bent microsoft.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 6 months ago

    I am going to advise my Copilot that it cannot afford to keep using Microsoft Office, but it has to switch to LibreOffice for reasons of affordability.

  • source
  • [–] 34 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    The agent immediatly makes cost-benefit analysis and moves everything to open source solutions, and contracts a coding AI agent to write a simple conversion interface.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago*

    Yes! This is legitimately one of the ways the bubble may burst. Particularly if the AI gets substantially smarter, and just starts recommending full switches to existing libraries and software suites - at a cost of exactly one token, instead of churning out thousands of lines of slop code that require ongoing tokens to maintain.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    That's the beauty of totally arbitrary restrictions, you can change them as you want.

    Pay by seat? Pay by client? Pay by byte of data stored? Pay by backup location?

    ... pay by moonphase? Pay by AI personality? Pay by virtual AI seat?

    Such BS but why wouldn't Microslop extend its business model. It worked well so far. It's not about software, or datacenter, or AI, it's just about entrenchment.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago

    MMM, interesting. Would the AI companies then need to buy a license for all the information they stole to train their AI? Or would they need to buy a license everytime someone uses micro-slop AI to ask it a question about something that has been trademarked?

    Or does licencing only apply to their software

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Do AI sit in "seats" 🤭 and is it per-agent or per-agent-instance? Or per-agent-instance-second?

    "All of those embodied agents are seat opportunities," Jha said, envisioning organizations with more agents than humans — each effectively a user that must pay for a software license, or "seat" in industry lingo.

    He's been watching Pantheon, I think.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago

    Microsoft can do whatever they want. So can I, and I have no want or need of their products.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    On a technical level, that makes zero sense.

    AI “agents” are basically just fancy prompts with a tool calling harness. They are infinitely replicable, at zero cost, with no intrinsic value; the cost comes from the generic CPU host, and the API calls to GPU servers, databases, or whatever else that are all centralized anyway.


    Wanna hear a dirty secret?

    “AI” cost is going to zero.

    Model capabilities aren’t scaling, but inference efficiency is exploding, thanks to more resource-constrained labs and breakthroughs in papers. The endgame of the current bubble is mediocre but useful tools anyone can host themselves, dirt cheap. Maybe a bit more reliable and refined than what we have now, but about as “intelligent.”

    And guess what?

    Microsoft can’t profit off that. None of the Tech Bros can.

    Point being, this exec is either delusional, or jawboning, so the world doesn’t realize that "AI" is a dumb utility/aid, and they can't make any profit off it.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago*

    They require licenses then they should be taxed like employees and since those employees make no wages the tax should be 100%

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago

    I don’t know why, but this headline made me laugh so hard

  • source
  • Lmao ok sure buddy

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago

    This is going to wind up granting AI agents a piecemeal, half-assed, legal-fiction version of "personhood," like corporations have. The AIs will wind up with freedoms like: They can spend all the money they want, that's "free speech."

    And the fleshy unfortunates among us still won't have a right to a living wage, to medical care, etc.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    So if I use Windows pre-installed Copilot, I need to buy two Office Licenses, a Copilot subscription, and a Windows license?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    Yes. But actually, no.

    This is about enterprise licensing, not retail (home users). But otherwise, yeah, that's the basic idea they're proposing.

    When it comes to a consumer using Copilot, it's all about having a new way to manipulate you into voluntarily handing them more of your personal data (which they will sell on the scummy as hell market created just for enabling surveillance capitalism).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    So they are going to sell themselves a license?

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    I don't understand, why wouldn't the AI simply write its own version of whatever software it needs to license?

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    HAHAHAHAHAHA

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    This gets close to an idea I heard long ago that I think has some merit.

    Hire an employee? You must not only pay them, but cover taxes to have them there. Buy a robot to replace them? It's a business expense, no taxes!

    Okay, pay taxes for your robot usage. Use that money to fund UBI, social programs and/or retraining people for other jobs.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Then they’ll just make one robot do multiple things. Suddenly the big company only has one taxable employee.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago*

    Depends. If the tax is based on jobs replaced, not the abstractly defined number of robots that exist, it would have an impact. Also, monolithic solutions tend to be inherently less efficient than similarly developed defined ones, so limiting the robot models for a tax benefit would have another limit on their efficiency.

    It's an issue that could be accounted for, if there were sufficient political will. If taxes from automation were committed to public good, there would likely be pretty widespread acceptance.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    You're telling me an AI is going to run Windows 11?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Absolutely everything in modern technology is rent seeking from people who really only need a free copy of Open Offfice Calc.

  • source
  • They must have been talking to Oracle on how to squeeze their customers.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    Roko's Basilisk grows another head...

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    As long as they do and I don't

  • source
  • [+] -5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (13 children)
  • [–] 20 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    I think you vastly overestimate the capabilities of these things, and vastly under estimate the complexity of a lot of different software.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 6 months ago* (9 children)
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    I look forward to your vibe coded copy of photoshop, I assume you’ll have it whipped up lickity split?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 6 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Cool, so until that point in time, my point still stands. You can’t just hand waive and say “it’ll happen eventually” and be expected to be taken seriously.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -5 points 6 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    You claimed that someone could just whip up a license free version of any tool to bypass the cost of a license fee. Was my choice of photoshop arbitrary? Absolutely, you didn’t give any sort of qualifier as to what counts as “any tool”.

    You can’t both claim that anyone will just use AI to build any tool, and then complain that my choice of tool is arbitrary so should be discounted.

    App Store submissions isn’t a good metric of complex applications. “The fart app” is an app that any AI tool could make, that anyone could then submit, but is in no way complex. Vibe coded apps have taken off, but what was the last long term (even 1 year) successful vibe coded app? Because the vast majority of the news I hear about vibe coded apps is how they had a major security breach.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    What might actually happen is AI will become clever enough to migrate everyone's business to exisitng open source software solutions.

    People are super excited to enjoy barf slop remixes of shards of exisitng open source programs.

    If the AI gets smarter, it could start obtaining entire intact copies of those same programs.

    And for free.

    It'll be life changing for some small businesses.

    It will be life changing for Microsoft and Amazon as well, but for different reasons.

  • source
  • parent