I'd say yes since you've allowed random people unauthorized use of the connection. It makes no difference if it's your connection or not. For example, if that proxy gets used as part of a DDoS attack, your device compromised that network.
how is this different than Tor? You seem a bit on the surveillance side. The computer/network is compromised if someone gains unauthorized access to it not if you share it.
I'm confused. I thought seeing/measuring lower frequencies due to a low sampling frequency, where the lower perceived frequency is basically the modulus of the real frequency and the sampling rate, is a well-known phenomenon independent of the actual sensor implementation.
Even if they do use AI and are happy with it, and I'd be willing to bet that isn't always the case, the services they use today clearly don't depend on data centers that haven't even been built yet. Maybe some are happy with the current shitty AI that's a fun toy to play with, but don't want new data centers built and used to train an improved AI that will make them unemployable.
It's very easy to save money when you don't pay workers and aren't worried about safety or accessibility. They'd made and were using several wooden bridges before this one, but all of them failed and were washed away. Maybe they get lucky and this one will stay up for a long time, and be continuously maintained by volunteers, but I'm very glad that the bridges in my city are more expensive because they were built by engineers who have to get designs approved and their work inspected and maintained regularly.
This happened where I live over 10 years ago, a huge investment that collapsed when they tried to hammer the support off. This was overseen by Cowan and had many engineers signing off.
The bottom line is when there is political interest, even guerrilla infra might work, but nothing survives corruption and neglect. The case of the makeshift bridge is only a matter of making the required tests and adaptations to make it legal or condemning the structure and building a new one.
No need to start worrying about AI reaching a level of intelligence far beyond human capabilities until it actually reaches the level of humans and assuming that ever happens it could be a very very long way off. All of the intelligence "AI" has right now comes from the human data that it was trained on. It's been given enough power to crunch numbers better than we do, as any computer can, and more data to play with than any one human can retain, but none of that equals intelligence. Speculating on a sci-fi future however, if AI is ever able to create new and more advanced forms of AI, which can also create new and and more advanced forms of AI we'll be outpaced quickly.
Now lets see if they actually do something to fix the broken system of checks and balances that got us here and bring some actual accountability for the insane levels of corruption.
> What incentive does google even have on presenting the ai summary?
I have some guesses:
They can artificially inflate the number of users who use their AI by including everyone who uses their search engine.
It trains people to be increasingly dependent on whatever google tells them instead of checking and reading multiple sources, and verifying information for themselves.
They hope to let people pay them to manipulate what their AI returns for certain searches (either mentioning certain things/products or suppressing mention of them).
Google search is getting increasingly useless as the unending flood of ad-filled AI slop websites dominates the search results and people will abandon searching with Google if they can't find some way to provide people with the information they are looking for. (it's not going well so far https://arstechnica.com/google/2026/04/analysis-finds-google...)
> They can artificially inflate the number of users who use their AI by including everyone who uses their search engine
Yup I could see that being plausible. It’s like Microsoft and Copilot. Project managers got to boast how they got AI “adoption” numbers up just by shoving it into people’s faces.
> Art Nouveau and classic styles from before are very expensive to build and maintain.
It's cheaper to do both now than it ever has been.
> living inside is more important than looking at it from the outside.
Even our insides are boring and stupid though. There's no creativity anywhere.
It's purely cost. It's just the enshittification of housing. Companies who can cut corners and give you the bare minimum using the cheapest materials can stuff their pockets with the money they save by selling you bland tasteless trash.
I'd say yes since you've allowed random people unauthorized use of the connection. It makes no difference if it's your connection or not. For example, if that proxy gets used as part of a DDoS attack, your device compromised that network.
reply