It’s to make it easier for the end user to do what they want to. People are best at communicating by talking and writing, so having the ability to get things done using natural language is kinda the holy grail.
Being able to summarise/edit/create documents/images/videos, automate tasks, change settings, etc by a simple conversation is an end user dream.
I’d say there would be a great benefit for a lot of e.g. disabled people who can’t use the traditional inputs.
Not saying that as a pro-ai/pro-win argument. Just that there actually will be good use-cases.
That’s not a use case for users. That’s a use case for a very specific sub group who likely weren’t using the OS at all. Not saying it’s not good they would be able to if that works for them, which I doubt.
Didn’t say that was a reason to gulp it down. Just that the use cases aren’t zero.
Knew a quadriplegic that gamed with her mouth on windows. A really well working, integrated “ai” would’ve dramatically improved her life and saved her hundreds of thousands for all the equipment and tech-guys.
And yes, that’s a very limited use case, but would allow poorer disabled people to also use a computer better.
But that’s really all good reasons I can come up with. For all else noone needs the shit baked into the OS.
For all else noone needs the shit baked into the OS.
So you can’t think of a single reason why anyone that’s not disabled would want to use AI on a computer? No reason anyone would want to use ChatGPT? Generate an image? Re-write some text? Summarise some text or a video? None at all? Really?
It’s to make it easier for the end user to do what they want to. People are best at communicating by talking and writing, so having the ability to get things done using natural language is kinda the holy grail.
Being able to summarise/edit/create documents/images/videos, automate tasks, change settings, etc by a simple conversation is an end user dream.
How many misunderstandings happen because people are bad at both writing and talking?
The answer is, a great deal.
Your answer is nonsense.
There is no real use case for the user. There are only use cases for the company.
I’d say there would be a great benefit for a lot of e.g. disabled people who can’t use the traditional inputs. Not saying that as a pro-ai/pro-win argument. Just that there actually will be good use-cases.
That’s not a use case for users. That’s a use case for a very specific sub group who likely weren’t using the OS at all. Not saying it’s not good they would be able to if that works for them, which I doubt.
Its still not a reason to foist it onto all of us
Didn’t say that was a reason to gulp it down. Just that the use cases aren’t zero.
Knew a quadriplegic that gamed with her mouth on windows. A really well working, integrated “ai” would’ve dramatically improved her life and saved her hundreds of thousands for all the equipment and tech-guys. And yes, that’s a very limited use case, but would allow poorer disabled people to also use a computer better.
But that’s really all good reasons I can come up with. For all else noone needs the shit baked into the OS.
So you can’t think of a single reason why anyone that’s not disabled would want to use AI on a computer? No reason anyone would want to use ChatGPT? Generate an image? Re-write some text? Summarise some text or a video? None at all? Really?
I said baked into the OS. Noone needs that. Everyone who needs ai can open a browser. That was the whole topic here, not usefulness of ai in general 😊
Being baked into the OS means it can do infinitely more than a browser based one can.
Name one really good application for baked-in? Nothing useful comes to my mind. And i’m not categorically against AI.