Jon von Tetzchner, CEO and founder of Vivaldi Technologies, refuses to integrate AI features in its browser and wants human engineers, not AI, to write its code.

  • eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    27 minutes ago

    Yeah, loved Vivaldi until it started randomly corrupting my profiles after not starting up correctly. Now I’m back on Firefox -_-

  • jaykrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I use AI on a daily basis and I don’t want AI in my browser. The desire to integrate AI into everything is not smart.

  • LPM@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I kinda find this idea cool like theres other browsers like Firefox that makes AI optional to choose

  • diaphragmwp@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    7 hours ago

    "it turns out the public hates the culture of corporate greed; let's figure out how to monetize that hate"

    also, yall stop saying firefox sucks because all web browsers capable of the bloated standards are de facto corporate controlled

  • mad_lentil@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Tetzchner says the company asked its users whether they wanted added AI features, and the response was “no.”

    Revolutionary technique, asking if anyone wants a feature before you go all-in on it.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        In a mechanical sense not a whole lot, but in both the reason why they are being focused on and what it does to the cost of computer parts they are quite similar. NFTs, Metaverse, and AI have all gotten the focus they have because the tech industry has been chasing the high of the internet and later smart phone booms, they all want the next big thing but they are all ignorant to fact that the only reason said booms worked was because of the broad utility which AI and NFTs have little of.

      • SwissArmyKazoo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        NFT tried to be an alternative to currency, But it almost endangered the economy and general affordability guarantees the same way AI used up water sources and federally protected forests

        • vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 hours ago

          To be clear NFTs tried to be a replacement to traditional proof of asset ownership like paper deeds and such. Then a bunch of people used that to create contracts for ownership of links to assets and sold that to speculative investors, aka morons, and thus another actually neat technology with a good niche dies.

          Similar to the blockchain being an amazing technology that could instantly verify transactions with complete accuracy; and instead got used for alternative currencies.

          Cryptocurrencies (blockchain-backed contract ownership of assigned mathematical conclusions) tried to be currency, NFTs in popular culture tried to be art (as in how art is actually bought and sold in the real world for money laundering.)

          AI (GAN including LLMs), like blockchain and NFTs, has its extremely specific narrow use case for society - one that is currently overblown and is being used incorrectly in all parts of society, and wasting the resources used and tarnishing the technology at the same time.

  • Smaile@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Bro looked at steams pro consumer behavior and thought “hmm, I wonder if I could do that too?”

  • mHtt@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    remember when they let Homer design a car?

    same shit happens when users get to design software.

  • LittleBorat3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    13 hours ago

    This ai stuff is like the new clippy the paperclip, GTFO of my phone.

    I don’t want features just rolled out without my consent.

    Long term I will have to install custom roms and get bank cards from my bank again thanks to AI.

    • Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I hate the fact that it’s so hard to buy an android phone without it coming with a load of proprietary apps that I can’t remove. If I want their casino shit, their stupid health apps, whatever - I’ll download it myself. Being unable to uninstall it really pisses me off. I’m pretty sure it’s practically malware. And the AI shit is just as bad - phone I’m on now came with at least 3 different AI apps for whatever. I did actually manage to remove two, but they keep trying to reinstall, could be hiding behind my launcher. And I bought this phone 2 years ago, I can only imagine it’s even harder to get away from these days.

      Maybe I’m out of touch, but I think most people just want an operating system and the opportunity to install what they want on it.

      • GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        One of the happy accidents that has come from American technofascism is this rennaisance of open-source programming and development and a renewed interest in digital sovereignty. People have been building alternatives to what the tech oligarchs have been cramming down our throats, and it’s not only more secure and more functional, it’s getting more and more accessible to the public.

        Take Graphene and PostmarketOS for instance. They’re both extremely easy to install on the right hardware. I haven’t had any complaints yet! :)

      • badgermurphy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I mean, much of it meets all the criteria to be called malware, so it is “walking like a duck” and “quacking like a duck”.

        All that bloat is typically cross-marketing agreements made with the makers of those apps to subsidize the phone’s cost without user consent. The part that I find weird is that there have been almost no marketing trials from major players testing the waters to see how much of a market there is for the same products that are not subsidized in this way, available at “full price”. Maybe they’re afraid that would draw too much attention to how atrocious the existing offerings are by comparison. It might put the privacy discussion more into the public discourse, which could be bad for their “business model”.

        • Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Yeah, agreed. My suspicion is that the major players have considered this and decided that the value of the customer data they gain from their bullshit malware apps is more than they would make by selling a clean phone, even at premium prices. I don’t know how the numbers break down, but I’m sure they do and they are probably right. Maybe most people would rather have a cheap phone full of tacky bullshit. It would be nice to have the choice tho!