Comment by the_snooze
17 hours ago
>For example, if you ask ChatGPT’s Agent to book a travel, it’ll open Chromium on Linux in an Azure container, search the query, visit different websites, navigate each page and book a flight ticket using your saved credentials. An AI Agent tries to mimic a human, and it can perform tasks on your behalf while you sit back and relax.
Big tech has repeatedly shown that they are not good stewards of end users' privacy and agency. You'd have to have been born yesterday to believe they'd build AI systems that truly serve the user's best interests like this.
I think in this case, Microsoft has shown they don't respect the user when they force shutdown for system updates. This has happened during my time working retail and the mom and pops are helpless when this happens.
I would never trust Microsoft to bake ai agents in..
> shown they don't respect the user when they force shutdown for system updates
Are you familiar with the prior state of things that explicitly motivated this change?
Yes. Since 199x.
macOS does the same thing. When I actually sleep, when my laptop's lid is closed. I wake up. My Mac wants a password instead of a fingerprint. It says it has updated the OS when I was snoring. What's the difference?
Every app, every window, everything is the way I left before closing the lid. My computer is updated, rebooted and ready for the day. Like nothing happened.
Linux is the same deal. If the desktop environment is upgraded a logout and login is necessary (and KDE restores session as well as macOS for the last decade, at least), and if I updated the kernel, I reboot. I'm back in 30 seconds, to the exact point that I left.
Only Windows takes 2 hours, 4 reboots, 3 blood sacrifices and countless frustration sounds to upgrade. While saturating the processor and the storage subsystem at the same time, which makes my computer create the same sounds of the said blood sacrifices.
2 replies →
Are you aware that MS already sells an operating system that can install patches without rebooting? Are you also aware that Linux can do the same? Why can't a supposedly mature 40 year old operating system do the same? Do you have any concept of the number of man-hours it would save globally? The amount of lost work? The impact on patching compliance and security?
My guess is they don't actually believe they have any competition, and therefore don't care to improve anything that doesn't also improve their bottom line.
18 replies →
Why does that matter? I should be allowed to explicitly chose the risks I want to take. Not microsoft. Especially not for microsoft to decide, no matter what I'm doing, or what I have open and unsaved on my computer, now is the time they think my risk is too great and tuesday has passed, so reboot reboot reboot.
5 replies →
The amount of money lost when millions of small restaurants and other retail shops suddenly become unable to accept customer payments for an unknown amount of time because Microsoft thinks Windows should force update during rush hour rather than allowing the computer owner to wait until closing time, would seem to be far greater than the amount of money lost with once-in-10-years WannaCry attacks
6 replies →
Yes the security of every Windows computer was much better then, any software that automatically updates itself without user consent is obviously a massive security risk because the user is no longer in control of what software they run.
1 reply →
Security is the catchall excuse for every bad big tech behavior because they know "security" professionals will defend every f-the-user move they pull [1]. Is it improved security when I lost days of work because microsoft (and you apparently) think their patch is more important then my data? Notice, by the way, that security incidents can cost big tech a lot of money but my lost data is no skin off their back.
[1] It reminds me of dermatologists, so hyperfocused on skin cancer that they tell everybody to hide from the sun, completely oblivious to all the harm their advice causes to the rest of our health.
1 reply →
i dont want a device to tell me when i need to restart it, thats my decission.
1 reply →
Not really. Maybe I'm jinxing it, but I've never had a problem caused by failure to update my PC.
Servers I understand because they're exposed to the Internet at all times. Not PCs
7 replies →
Sidenote, why is it always booking a plane ticket that they hype up? It's like the only 2 things any of the marketing can think of is booking plane tickets and replying to emails
It's funny, because it's also one of the most "gotcha-filled" things you can do. Click the wrong box, and they'll stick you in a seat with no leg room or make you pay extra for a carry-on bag. I have very little confidence that an AI would be able to make the "correct" choice on an airline ticket consistently without making a rather impactful mistake.
because the people driving these products are disconnected and deeply unbalanced people
Ironically, Microsoft's slogan in the 90s was "where do you want to go today?"
These days, it's more like "where do we want to make you go today?"
You'll end up with car insurance, a hotel reservation you don't want and pay extra for the middle seat
(Assuming it even gets the right airport/country).
>Big tech has repeatedly shown that they are not good stewards of end users' privacy and agency.
I can understand Google or Facebook being bad because their whole business model is based around selling your attention and agency. Microsoft shouldn't be as bad because they are selling a product but in many ways they appear worse.
I think it's hilariously tone deaf that travel booking and shopping are the two examples of "agentic" AI that keep popping up.
I think there are two factors:
1. "Help customers buy crap" is one of the vaguely plausible use-cases which excite investors who see the ads, even if it isn't so exciting for actual customers.
2. The ideas seem sourced from some brain-trust of idle-rich, rather than from the average US consumer. Regardless of how the characters in the ads are presented, all of them are somehow able to prefer saving 60 seconds even if it means maybe losing $60 on a dumb purchase or a non-refundable reservation at the wrong restaurant, etc.
> The ideas seem sourced from some brain-trust of idle-rich , rather than from the average US consumer
I think it says more about the economy currently. The "average US consumer" is the wealthy right now. Just 10% of the population, the highest earners, drive nearly 50% of consumption currently and that number is growing.
That is the new average US consumer, hence the ads and use cases targeting a more well-off demographic. Everyone else has been left behind.
2 replies →
The main reason I shop online is the joy of hitting that Buy button every now and then for something I want. I don’t want some dumb bot doing that for me (and getting the wrong thing 2/3 of the times)
The real chore is having to go to the store to get groceries, doing laundry, pairing socks etc … but solving any of that would require more than just bullshit LLM capabilities.
Groceries are hysterical to me. The ultimate first world problem.
It is just too much to go to the store, put what you want to eat in the cart, pay and walk out.
It stresses me out too much and takes time away from wasting time on my phone.
> get groceries
Isn't that what grocery delivery apps are for, if you really don't want to go to the store.
> doing laundry, pairing socks etc … but solving any of that would require more than just bullshit LLM capabilities.
Yes, it's a shame robotics (hardware) is harder than software, but that's not really the fault of AI model developers.
6 replies →
Every time I hit a "buy" button it brings nothing but horrible anxiety over what future bullshit I'll have to deal with, either because the product will be garbage or the seller will be garbage. And that's after doing an hour of more research for every god damn thing.
Getting groceries is practically relaxing at this point
The industry has decided that 'agentic' stuff is The Future, and has bet the farm on it. However, actual useful applications are, ah, thin on the ground to say the least. Accordingly, industry obsesses over the few use cases which have shown up, even if they are not necessarily use cases that anyone particularly _wants_.
searching for a flight and booking it is legitimately one of the most painful online things that exists. it's like the booking industry is feeding on suffering
It’s intentionally obfuscated because the product developers don’t want to share profits with brokers. They also do not want to compete on in the open because that too lowers odors Otherwise, we would have a system where it would be insanely easy to monitor and alert for price breaks. Hidden cities is probably the best example of how it could work and easily presents the price charts over time. Yet they too were cut off from some providers.
Because for the average person there isn't really that much they get out of todays agentic ai. This is all project managers can think of that applies to the average layperson.
It's just shitware being added to everything at very few people's benefit just so they can score some points on the stock market AI hype leaderboard.
Travel booking is time consuming and frustrating. In doing it now and hate it. If some YC company wants to fix this I’d be hugely appreciative.
Probably high priority because the dev and literally everyone else is sick of microsofts selfservice platform for travel.
I wouldn't trust a big tech AI agent to act in my own best interest. How do I know I'm getting the best deal and that they're not clipping the ticket? Given so many of these companies are really ad-tech/surveillance businesses, how do I know that they're not communicating information about me to the travel site which might affect the price?
> How do I know I'm getting the best deal and that they're not clipping the ticket?
You should actually expect the exact opposite. There's more money in getting large companies to pay you to redirect customers to more expensive products than in consumers paying for this kind of service. Honey[1] should server as a stark reminder here.
[1] https://www.tomsguide.com/computing/software/honey-scandal-e...
> According to Megalag and other content creators, Honey's core promise isn't true. PayPal and Honey say they'll run through a series of coupon codes to find the best deals. However, the firm is accused of using inferior codes to ensure the retailer gets more money from the sale while promising the user that the best code was used.
> Megalag tested this in his video and found instances where better codes were readily available online, but Honey chose to use a code with a lower discount, claiming it was the best deal.
What happened to Pt2 of his video?
[dead]