At what point does making your platform worse for the sake of forcing people to use AI become no longer financially viable?When does the camels back break?
>>108943311never. get in the pod goy.
>pic relatedSponsored by Philip Morris.
>>108943318>>108943311Where does the money come from? What is the purpose to force AI when nobody wants it, it costs money for them, and it's objectively worse than the alternative?Genuinely asking. Is it really just so Google can point to their """usage""" numbers when they inevitably need a government bailout? Really I'm asking for every platform currently forcing AI but Google is the easiest one to point to
>>108943336>when nobody wants itEmployers would love to have something that can work 24/7 shifts and never ever take breaks or vacations nor need to eat or drink.
>>108943311>At what pointcompanies like google can afford to lose like $10bn per year for decades. So the answer is: never
>>108943344I obviously see the appeal to employers when it comes to replacing humans. I'm more wondering who benefits from forcing something like "AI overview" onto every single Google user, putting out incorrect information and damaging your brand, without an option to be turned off.
>>108943361same reason why the Windows start menu loads up web searches even if you're searching for a local file. They can show the data to retarded shareholders and say "look! Everyone is using our webshit tools! You must give us more money since our product clearly works"
>>108943311its like when windows 8 tried to force their shitty touch start menu on everyone, making it mandatory. One company has to win and take it all for the rest to stop trying.
>>108943311>>108943336kinda embarrassing you are just now realizing its all fake jewish crap
Are your cigarettes doctor approved?
>>108943311Picrel is actually human advice. Addictions are complex and the textbook "don't smoke" isn't helpful.
>>108943311Luddite cope thread
>>108943311cool inspect element bro
