FaceDeer

They got their user base by being the first ones to have open access to it. Being the first to market OFC gives a massive advantage.

Right, and then everyone chose to go use them.

This isn’t AI vs everything. This is ONLY the “AI” products compared to themselves

Every single one of them showed an increase in user growth, Microsoft just didn’t grow as much as the others. They’re not just shuffling the same users around, they’re continuing to gain new ones.

And as I pointed out in another response to you, chatgpt.com is the fourth-most-visited website in the world. They’re doing that with just a thousand users?

chatgpt.com is the fourth-most-visted website in the world (as of September, when this data is from). That’s the website, not the API. People have to choose to go to the chatgpt.com website in their browser, when OpenAI’s APIs are used by other products they don’t go to the chatgpt.com website. The API is at openai.com.

How are all those people people being “forced” to go to chatgpt.com?

Alright. So for purposes of argument, let’s accept all of that. Microsoft and Google are just faking it all, everyone’s tricked or forced into using their AI offerings.

The whole table from the article:

ChatGPT by far has the bigger established user base. How did they force and/or trick everyone into using them?

Claude AI is growing their userbase faster than Google, how are they tricking and/or forcing everyone to switch over to them?

None of these other AI service providers, except for Grok, have a pre-existing platform with users that they can capture artificially. People are willingly going over to these services and using them. Both Microsoft and Google could vanish completely and it would take out less than a third of the AI search market.

And yet beating out both of them by a very wide margin, with 61.30% of the AI search share, is ChatGPT. Which didn’t have any established reputation or pre-installed userbase or anything at all that either Microsoft or Google started out with.

Your friend uses Gemini, presumably willingly. That’s not “faked.” This narrative of “nobody wants AI” is false, it’s just popular among social media bubbles where people want it to be true.

They’ve got 70% of the desktop operating system share. Seems like every other thread about them around these parts is how they’re “shoving AI down everyones’ throats.” I’m dubious that they’re “easier to ignore.”

So why aren’t Microsoft’s numbers going up? Everyone’s faking it except them?

Rare to see an AI-positive article getting so many upvotes on @technology@beehaw.org.

According to the chart in the article every AI is seeing stronger growth than Copilot, on a percentage gain basis. Gemini’s just the one that looks like it’s about to surpass Copilot in total market share.

So not only are people not reading the articles any more, they’re not even finishing reading the headlines all the way through?

I guess this accused witch was innocent after all.

Oh well, the price of purity. Throw the next one in the pond to see if they sink too!

I would recommend continuing to use Firefox until you actually don’t like it, rather than switch because of yet another social media post raging about AI. 90% of the time I’ve seen people complaining about AI being “shoved in their faces” it’s something that I had no idea existed and had to actively seek out and enable to see it in action.

Just don’t use features that you don’t want to use.

Sorry, you think that they’re suddenly going to be paying artists 50 times more as well?

You’ve already established that it’s okay to switch to AI to save money, we’re now just dickering about the specific price. You were the one who introduced the 50-times threshold, I’m not concerned about being so specific.

I guess that also depends on how much time and effort it takes artists to create a font, and how much they charge. Depending on the price, that may also be difficult to do for a smaller studio.

Indeed, AI tends to be more economically beneficial for smaller studios. It’s one of the things I like about it.

Right, it’s okay if you’re saving a lot of money in the process.

So the bar has shifted from “it’s okay to replace dish-washers and others such staff with robots, as long as artist jobs are protected” to “well, okay, you can replace certain kinds of artist with robots.”

Which kind of artist is next in line?

And for years people have insisted to me that there’s no use to be had from fully decentralized DNS alternatives like ENS.

These things are like backups. You need to start using them before you discover that you need them.

https://archive.is/pc7ly

I’ve noticed that Firefox just recently added “search this image using Google Lens” to the right-click menu. Google Lens then OCRs it, and lets me copy and paste the text. So here it is as text, courtesy of AI:

But here’s the twist: they weren’t anti-technology in general - they were against the way it was being used to exploit labor and devalue craftsmanship. In modern slang, though, Luddite has come to mean anyone who resists new technology or feels uneasy about its social effects - the person who grumbles about smartphones, Al, or self-checkout kiosks. In truth, the Luddites were early critics of technological displacement - a theme still echoing today every time a robot takes a job or an algorithm replac an artist.

and

Ah, the Luddites - a wonderfully rebellious bunch from the early 19th century! They were groups of English textile workers who, around 1811-1816, rose up against the industrial machines that were threatening their livelihoods. Imagine skilled artisans who had spent years mastering hand-weaving, suddenly finding themselves replaced by noisy, automated looms run by factory owners who could churn out cloth faster and cheaper.

I do much of my image work with local models, at least when it comes to trying to get something specific. All audio transcription is done with a local model, and a lot of the summarization and categorization of those transcripts is also local models.

The comment where I explained this all got downvoted too, though, so yeah. Still a lot of “AI=bad” regardless of self-hosted or not.

You think I have them captive somehow? Your assumptions are getting weirder and weirder.

We all have other groups we play with too, this is just the “core” group that’s been together longest.

We’ve been playing together for ~20 years, since long before there were any AI tools.

Once again you’re making some wildly inaccurate assumptions.

I haven’t been getting downvoted as much as I used to these days, at least. I think more people have started to actually experiment with AI and see what it’s good at, and are finding it to be not the Great Satan that popular opinion paints it as.