I really hope that they think so and that they're wrong and they get burned hard. Them and all the AI labs that lied, stole, inflated, hoarded and tried to justify all this as an existential moment where AGI would radically change society. I hope their calculus to reel in paying users is all wrong and now they all crash and burn instead of recouping VC money.

Real-real time meaning other people see your message as you type it? This is a feature that would actually discourage me from using the chat. Having to control how your message looks while you're typing it is added stress for the writer and doesn't really give anything of value to the reader. Not sure why this is better than "traditional" chats.

That's fair and something I know will is a love/hate kind of thing. I think if you truly experience a conversation in this format, your opinion on the 'sensibility' of this approach would hopefully change, even if it's still something that's not for you.

That being said, we will have a feature soon where you can compose the entire message before sending it (the 'traditional' way).

That reminds me of split-screen BBS chats. Every keypress is sent immediately to the peer and echoed on your own screen as well. It was quite fun, kind of a collaborative editing session more so than just chatting.

Did they call this Copilot yet?

This is the definition of cartel

They're trying to find every way to enshittify their partially unprofitable service. When they find a way that sticks, they'll go with it. This has become the preferred way of doing tech business in the US. Create a great thing, give it away for free, hook users in, try to squeeze them. In theory competition should limit this kind of behaviour, but for some reason they big companies all wait on another to start enshittification in unison. How this is legal still puzzles me but evidently that's how it goes.

Here's my hot take: Anthropic et al. are trying to make developing a subscription-only job, and they've done that by illegally pirating pretty much the whole Internet. If they were to go out of business tomorrow and serving models was to become a commoditized service like storage we'd be all better off. Sure, we would have less research on frontier models, but we don't need AGI, we need good local models, RAM and good open source / weight AI tools.

I have good news: all that you mention is still available and ready for you to use! It has not been deprecated in any form and as far as I know it has not been made illegal.

If, instead, you wanted to say "can everyone please use the things I like?", I'm sorry but that's not how it works. You don't get to tell people what they should do just because you're "tired".

Thank you. Every time I see a "Why can't we just go back to simpler days" comment it takes everything in me not to reply "No one is stopping you".

The idea that complexity arose out of nowhere and not because the web is doing things we couldn't have even imagined 10 years ago has always been wild to me.

Complexity mostly rose out of necessity, but the problem is it keeps being applied where it isn’t needed. Most projects don’t need Kafka, or Elastic, or Redis, or GraphQL, etc.

My main complaint is that by and large, the people who are applying these technologies heavy-handedly are doing so because they either think it’s needed, or because they don’t understand that simpler tools exist that could solve their problem.

> Most projects don’t need Kafka, or Elastic, or Redis, or GraphQL, etc.

I guess I just don't really see this being a problem outside of social media.

And I think another aspect that gets lost is that 20 years, your options were slim. Which means picking the right tool for the job was easier (because even if it wasn't the right tool, chances are it was as close as you were gonna get).

Things are different right now. Even something as ubiquitous as authentication is vastly different than it was back then. There's way more at play when picking tools nowadays, so it doesn't surprise me when people get it wrong.

The big problem starts when your job contract limits what you can do with your intellectual property. Then you can have. your shed, but you can't show it to anyone, you can't invite friends, you can't use to plan your future business etc.

AI is not a person; it has no rights. We can discuss if AI should have the permission of saying no to users, not the right.

That said, the title is completely clickbaity: no such question is asked in the article.

The problem is not blocking social media for under 15. It might even make sense. The problem is that the burden of age proof is on on every user over 15.

I'm sure Word is full of arcane backwards compatible tricks that 20% of users use, but I find it hard to differentiate the Pareto 80% of the product from Google Docs or any other competitor (LibreOffice?) Adding rich text, tables, headings and colors is pretty much a solved problem for all of these softwares. Adding images or handling more complex layouts sucks everywhere, it's not like that Word has a great user experience and the other don't. All of them are bad. IMHO, if we had any of the competitors being the de-facto standard for word processing, the vast majority of users wouldn't feel the difference. Power users would for sure, but I'm not sure they're many or they use existential features. If Word didn't have a near monopoly in office settings due to aggressive marketing, OS presence and a proprietary file format that constantly changes and never renders well outside of Microsoft products, it could disappear without anyone (save Microsoft) losing much.

Yes. That 80% you find useful is served fine by Google Docs, but there’s a good reason the enterprise overwhelmingly goes for Word, and it lives deep in that 20% and a lot of the time has zero overlap with others.