Litigation in some form or another. This is undoubtably related to the take it down legislation recently passed.
Porn isn't the only worry; there's also getting sued by the estates of dead celebrities, being misused for misinformation purposes.
Things are going to become increasingly restrictive until it is not worth using unless you're a corporation or a state actor. But for hobbiests? Resources are going to become thin on the ground and no, that is not a good thing.
I use too, but is not without its problem. It does implement a lot of adds in things like the new tab page, and it did some controversial stuff (they use to replace page ads with their own, essencially stealing the page monetization, dont know if they still do).
For a while Brave is going to be my stop gap browser. Hopping that Ladybird can soon replace it.
For all its flaws, Brave still annoys me less than Mozilla assh*les.
I also tried Zen Browser... lovely, but is pretty much Mozilla with a bunch of addons. The problem is, is not clear how much of the invasive Mozilla telemetry they left on their code base.
Unfourtunally, any browser that orginates from mozilla bullshit, for now, I kind consider fruit of a posionous tree.
>Let's not get sidetracked with the whole LGTBIQH or whatever topic
No -LET'S; because it's not a sidetrack; it's the primary motivation.
Quoth project 2025:
"Pornography, manifested today in the *omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology* and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered."
This is saying that anyone performing education or support services on LGBTQ issues, specifically transgender issues "educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders."
Focusing on this issue is not a side-track; it's one of the primary motivators for this new bill -to target, harass and imprison those who are LGBTQ...
of course anyone with more than two working braincells can anticipate how it would be expanded upon (goodbye freedom of assembly, goodbye unionizing); but it's a foot in the door.
I'm worried on a personal level that it's too easy to begin to rely on chatgpt (specifically) for questions and such that I can figure out for myself. As a time-saver when I'm doing something else.
The problem for me is -it sucks. It falls over in the most obvious ways requiring me to do a lot of tweaking to make it fit whatever task I'm doing. I don't mind (esp for free) but in my experience we're NOT in the "all the right answers all of the time" stage yet.
I can see it coming, and for good or ill the thing that will mitigate addiction is enshittification. Want the rest of the answer? Get a subscription. Hot and heavy in an intimate conversation with your dead granma wait why is she suddenly singing the praises of Turbotax (or whatever paid advert).
What I'm trying to say is that by the time it is able to be the perfect answer and companion and entertainment machine -other factors (annoyances, expense) will keep it from becoming terribly addictive.
The mention of lovebombing is disconcerting, and I'd love to know the specifics around it. Is it related to the sycophant personality changes they had to walk back, or is it something more intense?
I've used AI (not chatgpt) for roleplay and I've noticed that the models will often fixate on one idea or concept and repeat it and build on it. So this makes me wonder if the model the person being lovebombed experienced something like that? The model decided that they liked that content so they just kept building up on it?
What I suspect is that they kept fine-tuning on "successful" user chats, recycling them back into the system - probably with filtering of some sort, but not enough to prevent turning it into a self-realization cult supporter. People become heavy users of the service when they fall into this pattern, and I guess that's something the company optimized for.
It's interesting that a few of these projects seem to be reaching milestones at the same time. It's reassuring to see that there are people out there who are still working on this deep of a level with computers and sharing their results with us.
Clearly people care very deeply about sources and evidence -and they're attacking things (wikipedia, various gov websites) which can be used as objective sources.
If you don't have objective sources, it's easier to lead people around by the nose -hence the attack.
Here's the root of the problem though: wikipedia isn't an objective source by its very nature. Wikipedia requires mainstream established news sources for a lot of articles that aren't academic in nature, and especially for articles about people. You cannot include information that isn't supported by corporate news articles, which means corporate news is now the arbiter of truth, and corporate news lies all the time about everything.
Wikipedia is, and always has been, the encyclopedia of the elite and billionaire narrative, and especially the left-wing narrative, which dominates nearly all corporate news groups. I say this as a far left person myself.
corporate news rarely lies outright. libel is illegal. articles will spin and speculate, emphasize and elide, omit and opine, but that's not lying, it's spin, and a careful reading can extract the facts of the matter.
yes, you have to cite reliable sources on Wikipedia. yes, this means AP is considered more reliable than someone's Substack. you can, however, cite NPR or PBS, the BBC or the Guardian. if two reliable sources differ, you cite both and describe the conflict.
how do you know that "corporate" news lies all the time about everything? who told you that? why do you trust them? why should I trust them?
if you characterize something with such incredible bias, and do so knowing that the resulting impression and information someone will leave with does not match objective facts in reality, then that is dishonest and to me, equivalent to outright lying. this mischaracterization is in basically every single political article, including literally the top story on cnn dot com right now
