this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2025
417 points (97.1% liked)

Technology

76337 readers
1867 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
417
Microsoft wants you to talk to your PC and let AI control it (www.theverge.com)
submitted 1 week ago by Blisterexe@lemmy.zip to c/technology@lemmy.world
205 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

“We think we’re on the cusp of the next evolution, where AI happens not just in that chatbot and gets naturally integrated into the hundreds of millions of experiences that people use every day,” says Yusuf Mehdi, executive vice president and consumer chief marketing officer at Microsoft, in a briefing with The Verge. “The vision that we have is: let’s rewrite the entire operating system around AI, and build essentially what becomes truly the AI PC.”

...yikes

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

that does not make it transparent, neither optional. and to clarify by optional I mean opt-in and no nagging

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you only interpret "transparent" as "open source", then yeah, I agree.

If, however, you also consider "well documented" as "transparent", then what exactly is the deal?

And it's already going to be opt-in.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

If you only interpret "transparent" as "open source", then yeah, I agree.

Technically, yes. what I really mean is that people can look at it and determine it does not want to fuck people over, but that probably can't really be done practically without it being open source.

If, however, you also consider "well documented" as "transparent", then what exactly is the deal?

I don't trust microsoft with having an accurate, honest documentation on something like this. but this reminded me of another aspect that even being open source does not really solve: what about changes in the future? I could be reading the docs or the source now, but I won't even get to know when it updates.

And it's already going to be opt-in.

I have my doubts about whether they'll keep it that way

so in the end, the problem is really that its associated with microsoft. I have lost any trust in their words a long time ago.