I’d say there would be a great benefit for a lot of e.g. disabled people who can’t use the traditional inputs.
Not saying that as a pro-ai/pro-win argument. Just that there actually will be good use-cases.
That’s not a use case for users. That’s a use case for a very specific sub group who likely weren’t using the OS at all. Not saying it’s not good they would be able to if that works for them, which I doubt.
Didn’t say that was a reason to gulp it down. Just that the use cases aren’t zero.
Knew a quadriplegic that gamed with her mouth on windows. A really well working, integrated “ai” would’ve dramatically improved her life and saved her hundreds of thousands for all the equipment and tech-guys.
And yes, that’s a very limited use case, but would allow poorer disabled people to also use a computer better.
But that’s really all good reasons I can come up with. For all else noone needs the shit baked into the OS.
For all else noone needs the shit baked into the OS.
So you can’t think of a single reason why anyone that’s not disabled would want to use AI on a computer? No reason anyone would want to use ChatGPT? Generate an image? Re-write some text? Summarise some text or a video? None at all? Really?
Being baked into the OS means it can access parts of the OS. Asking ChatGPT in firefox to turn off HDR on your PC doesn’t work. Using Copilot built in to the OS means it can.
I know what it means, but toggling HDR isn’t really the thing that makes the total surveillance worth it. Not even for people who are ignorant to privacy.
That’s not a use case for users. That’s a use case for a very specific sub group who likely weren’t using the OS at all.
Ok you’re so far down the anti-AI hole that you’re just being ridiculous. No point even bothering. “Disabled people don’t use Windows” lol One of the dumbest hot takes I’ve heard in a while.
I’d say there would be a great benefit for a lot of e.g. disabled people who can’t use the traditional inputs. Not saying that as a pro-ai/pro-win argument. Just that there actually will be good use-cases.
That’s not a use case for users. That’s a use case for a very specific sub group who likely weren’t using the OS at all. Not saying it’s not good they would be able to if that works for them, which I doubt.
Its still not a reason to foist it onto all of us
Didn’t say that was a reason to gulp it down. Just that the use cases aren’t zero.
Knew a quadriplegic that gamed with her mouth on windows. A really well working, integrated “ai” would’ve dramatically improved her life and saved her hundreds of thousands for all the equipment and tech-guys. And yes, that’s a very limited use case, but would allow poorer disabled people to also use a computer better.
But that’s really all good reasons I can come up with. For all else noone needs the shit baked into the OS.
So you can’t think of a single reason why anyone that’s not disabled would want to use AI on a computer? No reason anyone would want to use ChatGPT? Generate an image? Re-write some text? Summarise some text or a video? None at all? Really?
I said baked into the OS. Noone needs that. Everyone who needs ai can open a browser. That was the whole topic here, not usefulness of ai in general 😊
Being baked into the OS means it can do infinitely more than a browser based one can.
Name one really good application for baked-in? Nothing useful comes to my mind. And i’m not categorically against AI.
Being baked into the OS means it can access parts of the OS. Asking ChatGPT in firefox to turn off HDR on your PC doesn’t work. Using Copilot built in to the OS means it can.
I know what it means, but toggling HDR isn’t really the thing that makes the total surveillance worth it. Not even for people who are ignorant to privacy.
Ok you’re so far down the anti-AI hole that you’re just being ridiculous. No point even bothering. “Disabled people don’t use Windows” lol One of the dumbest hot takes I’ve heard in a while.