• yeehaw@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Of course, they want all the data and they want all the subscriptions.

  • Corvidae@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    And if a pharmaceutical or drug has addictive properties with no medical uses, the government outlaws it by scheduling it as having abuse potential. Seems like a big double standard.

    • Photonic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      I’ve got some bad news… all of society is based on double standards. Humans are far less logical and much more emotional, gullible, biased and egotistical than we would like to think.

      • Corvidae@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        31 minutes ago

        While it’s just a guess, pharmaceutical lobbying is likely why. None of that happened before the FDA was created sometime in the early 1900s.

        Right now we’re in the political stages of considering the regulating of internet access to minors, the addictiveness of social media is not regulated.

        • Photonic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          20 minutes ago

          It’s an interesting thought, and maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but why would the pharmaceutical industry lobby to have certain drugs outlawed? For example, Purdue pharma went to great lengths to hide the truth about the addictiveness of their drug.

          • Corvidae@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            22 minutes ago

            My limited understanding of the history was that during the patent medicine era, medicines had proprietary formulas and varying compositions. For example, many formulas had cannabis extract, others contained opium. The initial regulations therefore were done for medical purposes of drug purity. Edited to add, it wouldn’t surprise me if the overuse of opium in the patent medicine era led directly to judging the medical usefulness of these drugs, although it’s just a guess.

  • username_1@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    11 hours ago

    The best addictiveness is being helpful. But I bet it is too difficult for MS, so they will proceed with some psychological shit to keep users.

    • iceberg314@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Not necessarily. If it answers you question and go go about your day, that’s not as good for Microsoft user numbers/engagement.

      They probably want it to just barely get you exactly what you need to keep you on the edge. Once they start training models for user engagement the enshitification will begin

      • BillyClark@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        They probably want it to just barely get you exactly what you need to keep you on the edge.

        Phrasing!

  • tempest@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I know the media frames this poorly and someone at Microsoft wasn’t smart enough to dance around the subject but everyone wants their products to be addictive. The sugar industry, petrochemicals, beauty etc etc. They all want this.

  • iceberg314@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 hours ago

    They just want it to he addictive so that people use it a bunch. Then they try to sell enterprise level versions to companies they can say look how much people use it, it must be because it is so useful

  • CerebralHawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I thought that was kind of the point of all of them.

    I have the ChatGPT app on my iPhone. I don’t love it, but I do like it for what it is. I also don’t pay for it. Siri and Apple Intelligence made a bunch of empty promises. Hell, Star Trek: The Next Generation set us up for so much disappointment in the 2020s. The fact that you can’t just talk to your phone and have a full on conversation with it is pretty damn disappointing in 2026. Well, you can with an app, but it’s creepy and it’s driving up the cost of computer parts, so it’s one hell of a monkey’s paw.

    But at the same time, I was giving a coworker a ride home, and Michael Jackson came up in conversation. I was a big fan in the 80s but really stopped caring about him in the 90s (not because of the allegations; I just moved on to rock and metal). My coworker mentioned a music video with Magic Johnson in it, and I asked ChatGPT what it was. While driving, because it has a voice prompt. I spoke to it like I’d speak to any passenger in my car. I said — this is right outta the app’s history — “I heard there was a music video that Michael Jackson did that Magic Johnson was in it. Do you know what that is? I’m just gonna take what I said.” That last sentence wasn’t to ChatGPT, I just didn’t hit the end/send button hard enough and it kept recording. The context baffles me, too. Anyway, the video was “Remember the Time” and it gave me four paragraphs about it, but I was driving, so it just spoke them, through CarPlay.

    I don’t love ChatGPT, but this is the kind of shit we were promised with Siri 10 years ago. Just to be able to ask it a question and have it answer you, no muss, no fuss.

    There’s no reason why you should ever have to touch your phone. You should be able to do it all by touch if you want to. Especially if you have earbuds, you should be able to ask it 90% of what you’d look up manually and have it just tell you. That’s the future. Google is probably most of the way there, and I like Android, I like customising the home screen, the lock screen, widgets, I like having a keyboard that doesn’t censor you and change what you say after you say it because what you said wasn’t politically correct — in no uncertain terms, fuck iOS for that — but I also don’t like Google and their data selling policies. Google is pretty much scum. Not that Apple are saints, but I still think of them as the computer company that made the Macintosh. I use Macs at home. I don’t like how they’re getting into services (though I do love Apple Music). I do love that they’re getting rid of the bean counter, Tim Cook, and getting an actual engineer as CEO starting in September (John Ternus). Tim Cook seems like a nice guy, but I don’t think he took Apple in the right direction, though I’m sure the shareholders vehemently disagree since he made them rich. Also, the M-series Macs have been great. I just hope Ternus makes them better.