Don’t underestimate management desire to be absolutely indistinguishable from their competition.
They read the Harvard Business Review, learn new terms they don’t understanding, make a PowerPoint out of it and voila, they are “innovative” like everyone else.
If HBR put “AI” on its cover you can be damn sure all those innovators are going to put AI wherever they can.
I would love to, but we stiill use Windows specific software
If I had 1 cent every time I read that… and I pulled those cents together… and then paid software developers to build that missing software for other OSes like Linux… then we’d gradually see less of those comments.
It’s as if the isolation was the business model, proprietary software insuring that alternatives do not exist because users do not bother to get together and unstuck themselves from glowingly dangerous (security wise but probably even financially dependencies.
Hopefully initiatives like NLNet are precisely trying to alleviate such challenges. Until them compatibility layers like Proton are showing the way with arguably some of the most complex and demanding in terms of performance software, namely games.
Minority Report, the bad parts.
Edit: glad I’m using a deGoogled Android phone, can’t trust manufacturers not to enshitificate.
The purpose of a system is what it does.
Right, reminds me of the hacker mindset or more recently the workshop I did on “Future wheel foresight” with Karin Hannes. One can try their best to predict how an invention might be used but in practice it goes beyond what its inventors want it to be, it is truly about how what “it” does through actual usage.
very very little actual logic
To be precise, 0.
The business model IS dodging any kind of responsibility so… yeah, I think they’ll pass.
I agree and in fact I feel the same with AI.
Fundamental cryptocurrency is fascinating. It is mathematically sound, just like cryptography in general (computational complexity, one way functions, etc) and it had the theoretical potential to change existing political and economical structures. Unfortunately (arguably) the very foundation it is based on, namely mining for greed, brought a different community who inexorably modified not the technology itself but its usages. What was initially a potential infrastructure for exchange of value became a way to speculate, buy and sell goods and services banned, ransomware, scam payments, etc).
AI also is fascinating as a research fields. It asks deep question with complex answers. Research for centuries about it lead to not just interesting philosophical questions, like what it’s like to be think, to be human, and mathematics used in all walks of life, like in logistics for your parcel to get delivered this morning. Yet… gradually the field, or at least its commercialization, got captured by venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, regulators, who main interest was greed. This in turn changed what was until then open to something closed, something small to something required gigantic infrastructure capturing resources hitherto used for farming, polluting due to lack of proper permit for temporary electricity sources, etc. The pinnacle right now being regulation to ban regulation on AI in the US.
So… yes, technology itself can be fascinating, useful, even important and yet how we collectively, as a society, decide to use it remains what matters, the actual impact of an idea rather than its idealization.
I did spend last week biking 45min somewhere and back (so 1h30) for 4 days in a row. It’s not for everyone … but not only it’s feasible but (and I know it will sound crazy to some) I actually did enjoy it. On the last day I even did the last trip with a new friend, chatting the entire ride.
Again, I’m not arguing that anybody should do that, or have fun doing, only that’s it not impossible.
Anything else but driving doesn’t work well in the US because the “way of life” is indeed car centric. It will never change without infrastructure, including but not limited to bike lanes. Large distances are possible with (electric) bike but this at least needs to be safe.
So… yes I’m not advocating for somebody leaving the middle of absolute nowhere to give up on their cars. This is not even about cities (as the article mentions a parking lot I assume it’s next or even inside a city).
No, my point instead is to question the false dichotomy.
Batteries can be recycled, reused or repurposed. It’s nowhere near as damaging as drilling for/refining/shipping/burning oil
Why is the alternative to an EV SUV a combustion engine SUV? Why isn’t cycling and public transport?
I’m not saving ICEs are good and EV are bad but that maybe… both aren’t great anyway, especially when actual alternatives that make people healthier do exist.
May I introduce you to the wonderful world of open source instead?
True, and yet a machine gun is a not a stethoscope.
That NLNet https://nlnet.nl/ funding FLOSS project.
There are also BlueHats in France showing how administration is using AND consequently funding FLOSS https://code.gouv.fr/en/bluehats/ by paying for sysadmin, feature dev, maintenance, etc.