I despise Alex Karp and Palantir, but this feels like a pathetic attempt to discredit him, for reasonably throwing shade on grossly over-valued AI products, unsuitable within the context of critical infrastructure and enterprise. His Berkeley faculty member argument simply seems to be an analogy, for other models being capable of performing the task, but it simply not going to happen in his belief. This article appears to serve stakeholders of the AI bubble.

Got to keep shoveling that minimum viable product slop, but heaven forbid a label which might serve as an indication for it.

Yeah, maybe in a different context, as in a scuffed AI-slop The Onion clone haha.

And this is why you use No-AI DuckDuckGo

that asserts a given browsing session is being run by a human or bot with legitimate intent

How? If an agent browses the web through that session, then how can you reasonably “assert” that?

websites “with strong knowledge of ‘personhood’” issue anonymous tokens that browser users and designated bots can present at other websites

What does that mean? Some creepy website that forces one to verify their “personhood” (by scanning one’s face for instance), that issues “trust me bro, it’s anonymous” tokens to a specific browser. And then the user is expected to present these unique identifiers at other websites, like there’s no possibility these can be passed back onto the issuer, and therefore re-identify the session-user?

the way people interact with the web is changing and increasingly may involve autonomous agents.

Yeah, and who is pushing for this change? Right, Google among other AI companies. You just got to love companies creating “solutions” for problems they themselves are, at least in part, responsible for.

Mozilla is committed to defending openness and user privacy on the web

Ah, thankfully we can trust Mozilla to protect the privacy-community’s interests… I mean, they certainly haven’t made controversial decisions is recent times.