Thanks for the conversion. Real scanlation enjoyers will understand.

What the fuck would an “AI browser” even be, let alone a modern one. I know what a web browser is, basically a combined HTTP client and HTML renderer. An AI browser is not something that has a commonly understood meaning, so to claim Firefox or anything else will be one without elaboration is just wankery.

I can’t help but do their dirty work for them and try to imagine what the hell an AI browser would be. Maybe you develop a standard protocol for prompting chatbots and a markup format for displaying responses and an AI browser is a client for that? Or maybe you just put an LLM in the search bar so Mozilla’s bullshit machine can give you wrong answers before pressing the return key and having Google’s bullshit machine give you wrong answers. Maybe there’s an about:chatbot page. I think all of these are bad bullshit ideas, but at least they’re ideas and not just “what if we added <latest fad> into <product>”.

AI Browsers. Metaverse fast food. Blockchain sneakers. Gigwork apartments. Cloud toilets. Big Data headphones. AR chairs. Military grade pianos. 3D books. App drugs. Dotcom condoms. Cyberspace bicycles. Wireless jump ropes. Video silverware. WYSIWYG carpets. Transistor fanny packs. Electromechanical ladders. Atomic flooring. Radio saunas. Horseless glue. Steam pens. Water powered masturbation.

I assume some mesolithic asshole said shit like “we are transforming our hunter-gatherer settlement to a ‘cave painting first’ society” and neighboring community leaders gave that guy like a hundred animal skins each for his insight.

Good to know that Orange Website is being considerate of us VT220 users. I knew there was a reason why mine has the amber phosphorus.

That’s interesting. If I weren’t going for a comical effect I’d try and rephrase the sentence, probably with a relative pronoun or something similar, but if unable to do so* I’d probably deemphasize the whole phrase the second time I say it. Though in terms of multi-word phrased, I think intonation would be the more accurate word to use than stress per se.

*“To do so” would be another way to avoid repetition

Rewatched Dr. Geoff Lindsey’s video about deaccenting in English language and how “AI” speech synthesizers and youtubers tend to get it wrong. In the case of latter, it’s usually due to reading from a script or being an L2 English speaker whose native language doesn’t use destressing.

It reminded me of a particular line in Portal

The fucking hypocrisy of it all stings. Years of everyone being told not to copy that floppy or Lars Ulrich takes your girlfriend because you wouldn’t download a car, would you? Turns out when Microsoft and Softbank bankroll you for billions to download all the warez the internet has to offer, Mickey will not only let you off scot free but gives you a warm sloppy pat on the back as a bonus. With enough doubloons you’re not a pirate anymore, you’re the navy.

Hitting the konbini in the wee hours for strong zeros, lolicon mags and pawahara ice cream

Well that and “core”. I could consider social media and even chatbots parts of internet infrastructure, but they both depend on a framework of underlying protocols and their implementation details. Without social media or chatbots the internet would still be the internet, which is not the case for, say, the Internet Protocol.

If TCP/IP stack had feelings, it would have a great reason to feel insulted.

https://xoxo.zone/@dwineman/115651788702895997

From the replies

I wonder what prompted it to switch to Elon being worth less than the average human while simultaneously saying it’d vaporize millions if it could prolonged his life in a different sub-thread

It’s odd to me that people still expect any consistency from chatbots. These bots can and will give different answers to the same verbatim question. Am I just too online if I have involuntarily encountered enough AI output to know this?

That’s a calculated risk I take with deadpan humor. This time I cut it close.

I was just riffing on the AI “moderate” talking points. Building a data center in space is prima facie ludicrously stupid and you would need an extremely unusual justification to even consider it. I was pretending to act like a moron who blindly accepts there’s probably a serious reason why they make sense just because some dumbass hype man said so.

The follow-up is also funny:

How many aliens can damce on the head of a pin?

Oh yea absolutely. Underwater datacenters have one upside (cooling) and massive downsides (everything else, more or less). Space datacenters trade that upside into yet another downside, make the downsides even bigger and add a few extra downsides for good measure.

Underwater datacenters make cooling very effective and maintenance nearly impossible, so you have to treat the container data centers essentially disposable. That’s only viable with economy of scale big enough to be an xkcd comic punchline. I guess Microsoft found that even they are not quite there yet. Also most computers don’t tolerate seawater quite as well as they tolerate air.

Data centers in space are a tool. You have to know when and how to use them. I’m not saying they’re completely useless, but most people do not understand how to avoid the difficult and expensive orbital logistics, power and cooling issues, radiation problems or the slow and complicated networking (unlike me, of course people like me know how to avoid them). Obviously it’s ludicrous to suggest space station server farms don’t have their uses and I’m not the kind of luddite saying nobody should ever be putting data centers in space, but right now they should really only be used together with terrestrial data centers and not relied on exclusively. That said, it’s still early days and we will inevitably be seeing a lot more compute in the orbit.

I love the phrase ego death because everyone I’ve heard describe the experience sounds like the most egotistical mf in the universe with how impressed they are by their own self-enlightenment.

It seems really common for words for factuality to become intensifiers. I just used the word “really” as an intensifier, thought it really means things occurring in reality. “Very” had the same thing happen to it, as it originally meant “truthfully” (as in “verify” or “verity”). If I say something is “truly massive”, am I likely specifying the massiveness is not imaginary in some sense, or am I trying to convey massiveness beyond the lower bounds of “massive”? Is a “proper banger” of a tune distinct from an improper banger or is it just a highly bangerful banger?