raydiak

That's a pretty blatant public admission that corporations fundamentally regard intelligent entities as profit sources.

On behalf of the actual majority who lost elections to gerrymandered districts, electorates, and blatant disinformation campaigns...yes this. Me too like an AOLer

Review the guidelines; this type of slander is well afoul of them. Go ahead and get the last word in if that's important to you, as I won't be wasting any more of my time on this thread or your destructive attitude. Comparing different opinions is acceptable but mean-spirited emotionally driven personal jabs are not.

I vaguely recall having a few similar complaints about Perl's PDL back in the day. Makes me wonder why we can't also support something closer to syntactically loop-esque constructs to express the same things without the need for special slicing/indexing notations with their own implicit semantics.

Calling a spade a spade is not condescending. You still haven't addressed the consequences of NOT doing something about Google's monopoly. You continue to ignore the fact that multiple comments from the person you were originally responding to blatantly falsified your misrepresentations. You don't care about my continued patient attempts to bring this discussion back to reason instead of personal attacks. You need some debate classes or something.

Anyway, I've done what I set out to, which is leave something for readers to think about. Changing your mind is not on my priority list, some people just can't be reasoned with. Facts are what they are, regardless of your acceptance or lack thereof. Say whatever further mean-spirited personal attacks make you feel like you "won" here, since that's apparently important to you. Go ahead and get the last word in. I'll leave you to it.

Review the guidelines. That level of snark and vitriol is wholly unacceptable on this site. That is why I comment here instead of, say, X. Disagreeing is not condescension. I keep stating facts, and you keep circling back to emotional aspersions. This is supposed to be a place for civilized discourse. If you are incapable of disagreeing in a mature and respectful manner, it is you who should engage yourself elsewhere.

That's a fair point. If we saw a downward trend in google search usage in the last year or two, it might support your theory.

Whether AI and search are similar enough to call them competitors, at least right now, is highly debatable. I don't know about other people, but I for one have definitely not started asking chatbots questions instead of looking for informed, human-authored content.

EDIT: Note that I mean downward trend in total, not the percentages shown by statcounter. Statcounter does have a separate chatbot page though, if you're interested in that. Still doesn't answer your totally valid question of how many people are chatting instead of searching, though. Maybe Google or ChatGPT could tell us :)

You're not entirely wrong, though I was also playing it up a little. Meant to be read more like a standup comedy bit, some part honest opinion and some part exaggeration. Someone told me a long time ago that laughing at my own jokes isn't funny, and ever since, nobody including me is ever quite sure how serious I am or not. :)

I'm not so opposed to vibe coding as recreation. Though if you're ever interested, those are all pretty easy and fun things to work with directly in my opinion, at least at hobby scale. Well, maybe not bare webgl, but that's why three.js is in the list.

AI sure does it a lot faster than I can though. I totally get your point that it lowers the bar to entry, and that the speed and near-instant mutability is more conducive to creativity. I'm more opposed to the semantically inscrutable term "vibe coding", but it seems pretty well entrenched already.

It is clearly directed at this specific project, given that it is attached to this specific HN item. And grow some manners.

This is a straw man, nobody asserted that the consequences should not be considered. Clearly, whichever way we proceed there will be considerable consequences; I doubt there is any dispute about that. Your argument seems to fail to acknowledge the dystopian consequences of NOT doing something.

Also, let's dispense with inappropriate jabs such as referring to other perspectives as "fantasy".

That makes total sense. I can see why many would be more Clippy tolerant if they hadn't had to explain its interruptions to other people and/or turn it off and move on with their day several dozen times or more.

Thanks! Sounds like a reasonable prediction. To me, crazy animated stuff in the wrong context is a component of bad UX. Though I learned web design by interning under a literal Nazi, so my design opinions may be a bit...extreme.

Perhaps I could make room in my heart some day for animated cats on personal sites. Clippy is still pushing it. More because of a bunch of bad memories of trying to support people who were infuriated by it, or on a few occasions having to go to the trouble of opening Word just to disable it on several machines in a day, than its actual physical aesthetics. In my memory it looks more like an image search for "evil Clippy" (didn't think to try that until now, some pretty funny stuff).

Completely agree that corporate dark patterns are a much greater concern. That's why, except for Clippy, I like this project. It puts the tool directly in people's hands with no need for tech skills or cloud gatekeepers and spying.

Tangentially, I just realized that this nicely self-contained Clippy might be able to copy itself. It doesn't have to be able to write an LLM, just copy (or worse yet upload) one file and execute it. Like Agent Smith. But Clippy.