top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 93 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The problem is not that this technologies are or aren’t a grift, the problem is that they are used to grift (and that the 4th power that is supposed to protect us against this isn’t doing its job).

In that sense : every next technology will be a grift. Look at spaceX, he sold refueling booster as the next step in human space exploration evolution and finally its just another company used to mine our data. Grift

  • source
  • [–] 56 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    The renewable energy industry. The tech is good and getting better rapidly. Costs continue to drop, consumer grade solar is becoming widely accessible.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    All technology from this point on will be a grift, because the grifters have all the power.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 32 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (13 children)

    I don't see why put quantum computer in that group.

    It's a scientific research topic. It is know what it does and what it doesn't do. And they are not selling you it's going to be the future.

    It's just a developing technology which have potential to make some algorithms more efficient than binary computation.

    They don't sell you quantum computation, they don't tell you to invest in it. It's just something being researched by computer scientists.

    Let's not be that much anti-any-kind-of-progress, shall we?

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Quantum computers are more secure but could also be used to break that security. That's why the major customers of quantum computers are banks and governments. It is not really for wide mass consumption. Although I heard quantum chips are better and more environmentally friendly but i am not a tech guy so i could be wrong on that or the quantum chip itself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Quantum computers are a thing, and they’re very useful for certain things…

    But business idiots in the tech world do be slapping the word β€œquantum” on stuff. It’s not a huge thing at the moment, but it’s probably gonna be the next insufferable hype cycle after they get tired of branding random shit as β€œAI enabled” because they stapled a chat bot on to it.

    Like, give it a few years, someone will be trying to tell you that a quantum computer will somehow make a vacuum robot able to do your laundry because β€œsomething something better path finding”

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 2 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    I am not against any of the tech i listed, i think they all are neat and quite interesting to study and use.

    you have probably not been around the forums to realise why i put it there, QC discussion these days are leaning towards the it's a grift/ it will never be viable territory. This is mostly in large part due to M$ and their claims. there is also some subtle fear mongering going on with the recent push towards quantam resistant encryption standards.

    So i am not calling QC a grift, I am calling out that whenever it becomes viable for the companies that are researching it to rent their computers to consumers, people will start calling it the next grift.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Artificial Intelligence is also a research topic. But when snake oil merchants figured out that they could use the term to take lots of money from the hands of unsuspecting people, it became a grift. As such I believe the inclusion of quantum computing in the group is on point

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)

    I mean it's definitely something that companies are trying to sell. Even if it's just marketing BS right now, they're using this to sell their LLM products.

    https://news.microsoft.com/source/features/innovation/majorana-2-microsoft-discovery-agentic-ai/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (3 children)

    They are not selling that to end users or business.

    That's a line of product for research purposes.

    They sell that to people researching quantum computer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    How about Mullvad advertising quantum protection or whatever?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    What?

    Post quantum encryption algorithms are the ones that any serious company should use right now.

    Because one of the algorithms that it's stated to be far more efficient on a quantum computer than a binary one are number factorization, which is the bases of many public private enceyption algorithms like RSA.

    Right now it's not possible, but listen now decrypt later means that anything encrypted now might be decrypted in not so many years by a quantum computer.

    They are not selling you a quantum computer, they are "selling" the algorithm you should be using if you don't want your communications to be easily decrypted when a quantum computer with a higher number of stable qbits hits production.

    Those algorithms are, anyway, public and well know, like parabolic curve algorithm or lattices. You could implement them yourself, any company can do so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 29 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Capitalism makes every innovation into a grift

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

    +1 for stating that the technologies themselves are not the grifts.

    LLMs are fantastic tools. Quantum Computing will have meaningful uses.

    The grift is the marketing and the dumb C-Suites that fall for it.

    To answer your real question though, I need an AI that will actually convert a basket of dirty laundry into a stack of neatly folded clean clothes. That shit will be revolutionary.

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

    To answer your real question though, I need an AI that will actually convert a basket of dirty laundry into a stack of neatly folded clean clothes.

    I mean we have two machines that together convert a basket of dirty laundry into clean clothes. And then by appeal to authority ("There's no law that says I have to fold my clean clothes."), voila! It's done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Unacceptable. Pathetic. Is that the best humanity has to offer? Some brutish, crude machine that just agitates my clothes in soapy water? And a second machine that just blows hot air on it as it spins it?

    No.

    I should be able to put my dirty clothes in a receptacle, and say "Hey, Robot Overlord Google. Start clothes cleaning cycle" and when I return the clothes are separated, cleaned, and neatly folded. At a minimum. Really the clothes should also be put away in my dresser by the AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    What if a robot came and gathered all your dirty clothes, made listings for them on craigslist (or whatever people use now), marked up above MSRP or whatever you paid (people will still buy them, even used, even at a higher price than new, if you include a note saying they were owned by a woman, whether they were or not), shipped them to the interested buyers, used the proceeds from those sales to purchase new, identical clothing to what you previously owned?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I'm sure at first I would love it because instead of having to purchase this robot it would be "free" to me.

    But after everyone gets used to the clothes robots there would eventually be paid subscription tiers and the next time you open your drawers all your pants have DraftKings ads on the butt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 26 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Nah they're not inherently grifts; they're pushed by grifters making money off the back of them.

    I think Lemmy users are more likely to call these grifters out for what they are, because the user base has proportionally more technically minded people who understand what the technology is. Lemmy users have to an extent self-selected themselves into the fediverse. On other social media the absolute number of technically minded people will be higher but the proportion of technically minded people is much lower, so the voices are drowned out by those who don't understand he technology and it's limitations. And of course the grifters target those platforms with a lot of propaganda, because ultimately it's about selling shares and inflating share prices.

    Anyway to answer you question, CRISPR gene editing is revolutionary and will have major impact. Nuclear Fusion despite it's slow emergence will also be revolutionary. Immunotherapy is an ongoing revolution; it's not a quiet revolution but it's also not getting the general focus it probably should be as AI appears to dominate the current zeitgeist.

    We are actually living through extraordinary times; AI is a part of it but AI seems to be the bit getting most of the attention because we're in the middle of a stock bubble driven by AI speculation.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    I really disagree about fusion. It will have nearly zero impact on the electricity and power market. It's dead on arrival economically. There's no way a fusion plant is going to be cheaper than a fission plant. And it's already far cheaper to provide base load power with solar and batteries than it is to do so via fission. And this is the state today. Imagine how cheap these will be when commercial fusion finally happens. Realistically, even for constant 24/7 power output, fusion will probably cost 3-5x what solar does. Fusion plants would have a smaller physical footprint, but no but no one really cares about that. There's no shortage of space to put panels.

    Fusion will have a lot of utility in the very far future. As humanity ventures ever further outward, it will be invaluable for true deep space colonization. Fusion provides the power necessary to expand to the Outer Solar System and beyond. 500 years from now, fusion will be a really big deal to folks trying to make it out there. Fusion allows you to turn any random ice ball in the Kuiper belt into a colony capable of supporting millions. And it would probably be a necessary prerequisite for interstellar colonization.

    But for anyone living closer to the Sun than the asteroid belt, fusion will be of little use beyond perhaps niche isotope synthesis or as a neutron source.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 4 months ago

    The technologies were/are not grifts. They were used as buzzwords to enable the grift of spending investor money.

  • source
  • [–] 42 points 4 months ago (18 children)

    Blockchain had potential in use cases beyond currency replacement and speculative assets. AI has actual use cases as a high quality chatbot. Instead these things were hyped and marketed as things beyond their actual capabilities.

    Quantum as it is currently doesn’t seem like a grift, but is just a susceptible to being manipulated and marketed as one as soon as there’s a remotely market viable version of it.

    The problem isn’t lemmings or luddites, the problem is lying capitalists hoping to sell something that doesn’t exist or isn’t stable.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Yup they have their uses, but what happened here is like in a world where hammer is not invented yet, but the invention of the hammer causes every single industry to start using hammer for all their existing process without considering whether they are appropriate or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (16 children)

    What exactly are some of the use cases for an infinitely growing, append-only database built primarily so its largest users can rewrite history at will?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Anything where a trustless system is important. The "largest users can rewrite history at will" is a critique to specific implementations, not Blockchain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I don’t know that it is, though. Can you show me form of blockchain in the real world where this doesn’t apply? Saying large actors can’t affect a specific piece of internet technology, so far, is rather like teaching physics without friction. It’s nice and fun and easy to understand but completely ignores the reality of any implementation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Well, you just don't know. In the real world there are private blockchains between equipotent participants that don't rely on burning the planet to function. Helpful reading: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/ethical-hacking/private-blockchain/

    Blockchain is a concept, can't be owned or affected.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Why does a blockchain have to be one big omni ledger? Why do users need more than one token in it? Blockchain could be used for login tokens for a website or for proof of ownership of software licenses.

    Yeah it’s currently flawed and used beyond the scale it’s capable of for things it’s not really good for, that was my entire point. Now the tech is tainted and reviled because of the grift and no one wants to touch it and explore what it could be useful for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    If login tokens are stored on a public ledger replay attacks write themselves. Public or private, keeping every login token ever is a horrible audit mechanism and doesn’t scale well. At scale, speed to generate becomes a concern. Not at scale, something lighter is faster.

    A normal database scales better than a license blockchain and doesn’t require extra computation to write. Audit logs and hashes prevent extra edits. License files signed by a central authority don’t require a database and the central authority is functionally equivalent albeit less expensive than a blockchain.

    I am still interested in a good use for the tech. I have yet to see one that is genuine.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    Is it rewritable, or is it append only? You only wrote one sentence yet still managed to contradict yourself so I suspect you have a very meager comprehension of the technology.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    As I understand, it's normally append-only. But, with some implementations, if a malicious entity controls most of the block production, they can undo recent transactions at will.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Some resort to majority vote, in the case of disagreements. Theoretically, if someone owned/controlled over 50% of the database, they could rewrite it, and have their version seen as true.

    For the few valid uses of it, that shouldn't be a problem. It will also be reasonably detectable beforehand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago

    It's not as simple as that. Each block solves the problem of the former block, so to change something five blocks back, you now need to solve six blocks prior to writing the next block, otherwise it's not cryptographically valid. The resources required to accomplish that are not trivial, and it's never been done. Very theoretical indeed, in the same sense you could theoretically run through a wall if all of your atoms missed all of the atoms in the wall when you should have collided.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Go ahead and prove me wrong. Show me blockchain implementations that are immutable post append. On my end, we can talk about Bitcoin forks. We can also talk about the current state of consensus mechanisms, each of which has the explicit ability for large actors to rewrite history in their favor. Even Monero is susceptible because this is fundamental to the blockchain in any form. It’s been a huge reason why I make sure I get paid up front for any consulting I do in this space.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

    Only the last few blocks are "rewritable," which is why a certain number of confirmations are a necessity. Going any further back than that, would be a completely different chain - a fork. The last of of those occurring on Bitcoin was thirteen years ago when it was still encountering growing pains due to an uptake in usage. Forks of more than a couple transactions are not a frequent, regular occurrence by any exaggeration, so for all intents and purposes of modern crypto usage, it is immutable, not "rewritable.'

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    If any of it is rewritable, none of it is immutable. You can’t have it both ways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    Notice I put quotes around rewritable. That's because it's not the correct term, and I was being charitable in engaging in your straw man argument. It's actually a collision of timing, where two solutions are presented for the same block in a short amount of time, and until the consensus is reached by the majority, both are temporarily valid. Once consensus is reached, it's final. There's no going back. In that sense it is not rewritable, it is immutable. It's just fuzzy for the first fifteen minutes which branch will resolve as the actual Blockchain in the event of near ties.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    I don’t think you’re using straw man correctly.

    You’re naively referring to how consensus should work while completely ignoring both the well-defined attacks I referenced and the reality of large actors in a consensus network. You don’t know what you’re talking about or you don’t understand how the theory works or you’re possibly just being obtuse. No matter what, this is pointless. Good luck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Perhaps I am. I'm referring to your malicious actor you believe will rob you of your holdings. What does that look like? Some nebulous entity undertakes the task of acquiring greater than half of the processing power of the Bitcoin Blockchain, expending enormous resources to do so, for the purpose of reverting the $500 they paid you? And they're not at all worried about devaluing the network they've invested significant resources into controlling, they just want their $500 back? The attacks are theoretical because they're not practical and require illogical actors working against their own interests by undermining the network they're supporting. It would be like a bank who takes deposits, but doesn't allow withdrawals - who would trust them? They'd go bankrupt for their efforts.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    These technologies are not grifts.

    The way they are often employed is absolutely a grift.

    Blockchain is a very cool concept. Getting people to pay $1,000 for a picture of a cat and imply that it has value because it's on a blockchain is grift.

    Ai is a cool technology. It has become a grift because the companies behind it are sucking up massive investor dollars, destroying the worldwide computing parts market, and persuading managers to axe jobs promising the AI can take their place.

    If quantum computing actually starts to work some of it will be used for grift because many current encryption schemes could potentially be cracked using quantum computers.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    The picture wasn’t even on the blockchain. It was a url which links to a picture of a cat sitting on someone else’s server

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Was it even that or just a hash of the url (or whatever text/data was being "confirmed")?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    It was some sort of hash system. The blockchain didn't want to store large amounts of data on the chain itself so it would store some sort of hash of the image file and as I recall a pointer to a server where that file was located.

    The whole thing was totally fucking stupid but people poured tons of money into it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    AI is not a grift but it is very much a dangerous rudderless ship right now.

    Quantum computing is also not a grift.

    Hell I feel dirty saying this but you could argue blockchain is not a grift either.

    The problem in all these things is the people not the technology.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    That's the thing. When you were browsing bitcoin subreddits during the "golden days" it was pretty bizzare to see people talking about how cool it is and thia is the future and all, and to make it viable, you have to use it, like you know... A currency. But then they also made fun of the guy who bought a pizza with his bitcoin. Haha what a loser, he bought. A pizza for 40k no now 100k dollars. We are all holding, right, no one is selling, right guys?? We're all in the same boat.

    Motherfucker, it's so obvious that EVERYONE was treating it like a get rich quick scheme.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago

    I think it is only partly dependant on the technology. Each of the listed technologies CAN have useful applications, but the current capitalist system is expecting unattainable growth so ot creates bubbles and in the bubbles there are grifters.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    There's quite a lot happening in 3d printing that is kind of life changing, and not getting any press coverage because no single obscenely wealthy person can use it to hype a pump and dump.

    Weird specific stuff exists now, that never did before - like custom cases for weird sizes of batteries, and a pen-holder that looks exactly like the latest manga character to make a splash.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    Yeah 3D printing has either allowed me to print out stuff that helps around the house that I don't necessarily want to spend money on (a basic flowerpot for example), or things that are obscenely overpriced that I can print at the fraction of the cost (a case for clarinet reeds, with some cases going for nearly 100$ for a basic plastic case with a space for a silica gel packet).

    At first I picked up my printer thinking it would be useful for robotics and prototyping some cases for electronics projects. Turns out its playing a big role in me just not going out to buy stuff anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Do elaborate more on the 3D printing stuff

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Do elaborate more on the 3D printing stuff

    There's all kinds of mechanical things that can be directly 3d printed, now - screws, and hinges and springs!

    Someone invented a 3-way zipper that allows a structure to be rigid when zipped or flexible when unzipped. Supposedly we're going to get a bunch of cool new more convenient tents and field furniture with it, soon.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    I got some parts for a very cheap keyboard that Logitech doesn't sell (for obvious reasons, it's Logitech lol). Just hit up a 3d webshop and they were delivered in less than a week.

    Not to mention the high-end stuff that is being used for like, medical innovations.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Gene therapy and stem cells.

    There is one from Japan about regrowing teeth, and then the one (forget where) about a 4 hour gene therapy treatment that basically cures issues some people have around cholesterol.

    Although maybe the first one might turn into a grift. Like honestly, if I could GMO in/ Stem cell in like, just one alligator tooth into my grill, I might just.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    People say quantum computing is a grift?

    The other two are are only "grifts" because capitalism has shoved them into things that have no business involving them and breeds opportunistic get rich quick mindsets around the technologies. So any time you hear them mentioned it's more than likely to be a grift. They are fine in certain niches and very stupid everywhere else, like every other technology.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    people will say QC is a grift when it eventually becomes commercially viable(Just look at the second level comments here)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    people will say QC is a grift when it eventually becomes commercially viable

    Specifically, QC will be a grift when the media tells us all it is now, finally, commercially viable.

    Then it will remain a grift until it either dies off or reaches actual commercial vaibility.

    No, I didn't say anything about AI. Who brought up AI? I'm pretty sure I didn't. Really? Nah. Doesn't sound like AI. Oh...yeah, I guess. Maybe it does.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago*

    Capitalism is what makes them grifts. Llms could be neat. Theft at scale, environmental impact, and using it to kill little kids (anyone but jfc the kids killed wtf) is the problem. Its always the horrid companies and governments who look at any tech like "can i hurt people with this? I totally can..."

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago

    Really without major social or political change all commercial technology will serve incumbent power.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    None of them really, they were all novel technology ideas snd advancements that every company and their mom adopted because it became the next silicon valley investment money printer.

    Blockchain started out as a decentralized network concept that's still useful today.

    AI started out as a tensor statistical concept that's still useful today.

    People say QC is a grift because every silicon valley giant has invested heavily into it because they want to be the first if it becomes viable. It's just what they do. They throw money into everything and if they get something successful, they pump it as much as they can before it dumps.

    Even FOSS software isn't invulnerable. Half of AWS's SaaS platforms are just automated FOSS software running on their cloud infrastructure without so much as a hint of donation or development into the project itself. They just want money, they don't care how they get it.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago
    [–] 8 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Why do folks think quantum computing is a grift? I haven't heard that yet.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    The technology itself isn't, but companies will probably abuse the word 'quantum' until it loses all meaning, like they have with AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Is your cloud Quantum Safeβ„’?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Is your cloud Quantum Safeβ„’?

    lol. That could end up being the one non-grift example, though.

    There's going to be lots of grift claiming that something is somehow "better because quantum", as if how the thing was processed makes the outcomes artisanal. lol.

    But defending against assholes who have access to a quantum computer is actually proving to be not too terribly expensive, so far. (Signal and Proton claim to be ready now, for example.)

    But a big important open question is which kinda of assholes will have access to quantum computers, and what quality, and how soon.

    I expect a slow stupid adotpion race between ignorance and laziness.

    It's not unreasonably expensive to secure services against quantum computer attacks (so far), but until people understand it enough to want it, most vendors will probably ignore it.

    So we will probably get something like HTTPS adoption, again - unreasonably slow due to lack of understanding or care about the risks, probably with a few infamous breach scenarios along the way to mark progress against.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    If you agree with the basic view that any software that does not respect your rights to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute it, is a form of unjust power over you - then that principle becomes a convenient acid test for virtually all computer technology. Any tech that enables and enhances those rights is not a grift. Any tech that restricts those rights is a grift.

    Of course there are edge-cases. Blockchain stuff is usually open-source, and yet it's a tool that has been designed by and for the most extreme right-wing libertarian types, so while the underlying technologies could hypothetically be used for good, the forms that they're implemented in are pretty clearly a grift. So intention and design matter too.

    I'd also like to see how the Hyppocratic License shapes software over time.

    Would also love to see more developments in Farm Hack, Appropriate Technology, and Open Source Ecology.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    thats why I think there should be a fsf led effort to make some version of FOSS agentic AI(i know its just a marketing term).

    I hate that the ability to just sit at the computer and go

    Hey, can you go through the hundreds of images i have in my Downloads folder, and transfer the images in which i appear in the center to this directory, also make it so in the future any pdf with a specific header goes into this directory will M$ exclusive feature.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    I think Fire and Stick have a long future ahead of them still. Also a big fan of Wheel and Stardew Valley.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I think Fire and Stick have a long future ahead of them still. Also a big fan of Wheel and Stardew Valley.

    Uh...one of these is not like the others.

    Are we sure Wheel has the long term practical staying power of the others in this list?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    All technologies are grifts when controlled by the capitalist class and marketed under the logic of capitalism. Simple as that. Even the simple hammers you find at a hardware store are a side effect of some rich asshole's money hoarding operation.

    For this reason, I do not reject the listed technologies outright. (Although I do not personally know of a non-capitalist use for Blockchain, I'm open to suggestions.) I reject the capitalists who control these technologies.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Let me see if I got this right. By that logic if I can see that people need spoons to eat their soup and I provide said spoons at a price that covers my costs and earn me a profit for my hard work to produce them, I'm an asshole that hoards money?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    Depends. Are you one of the workers in the spoon production process? Then no, you're not an asshole that hoards money, at least not on that basis.

    Do you privately own the factory? Do you privately own all the spoons that the workers produce under a series of """voluntary""" employment contracts? Then yes, you're hoarding money (more precisely, hoarding the means of production and products).

    Profits are just wealth stolen from workers.


    I'm a bit surprised that you're reacting to that particular clause in my comment because it's bog standard socialist analysis. Like I'm not saying anything controversial there unless you're just not a socialist.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    they will all be enshittified so whats the point

    uhm well how about anti-enshittification/corruption technology, wheres that

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Holy loaded question batman! Yeah I'm not gonna take this seriously with you just making these sweeping assertions with no evidence.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 months ago

    The assertion that lemmy users call Blockchain and AI a grift is not without evidence(just browse around on any thread related to the topic) people calling QC a grift is more nuanced and something I have picked up on, you could make the case when 'it happens' lemmites would call QC a grift.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next β€Ί