[pretext-1]

> for entrenching you further into proprietary technology

But isn’t this already the case right now? In my opinion this argument is kind of backwards because the lack of (or access to) APIs is precisely what’s preventing us from having alternatives!

Siri is proprietary, closed source, big corp, etc.

Want an open source, community based, interoperable, fully local, etc. assistant/AI? It cannot exist in today's world simply because it requires what Meta asks for.

I dislike Meta very much but I refuse to believe that creating or opening up such APIs would foster „entrenching you further into proprietary technology“.

[vouaobrasil]

> But isn’t this already the case right now? In my opinion this argument is kind of backwards because the lack of (or access to) APIs is precisely what’s preventing us from having alternatives!

Yes, it is. The entrenchment is an ongoing process designed to give us short-term benefits that appear harmless. But they slowly add up and produce an ecosystem that is actively harmful and not much better than before (on average).

By the way, I don't argue for or against Meta having access to APIs. I am against Meta entirely -- and the only logical answer to them is to dismantle them.

[ToucanLoucan]

> Siri is proprietary, closed source, big corp, etc.

Yes, and because of that, it's the only voice assistant I want. I do not want a hyper-intelligent "friend that knows everything about me" because that, without fail, is being sold to me by companies who will need access to every last bit of data about me and my life, who will then host that data somewhere, with some level of security, which I'm not involved in and do not control. And tbh, given my thoughts about how users approach tech, I don't want that for other people either.

Putting aside my feelings about surveillance capitalism and how inherently exploitative and inhumane it is, with full knowledge that all my objections under that umbrella already, for me, constitute a wide and thoroughly researched opinion as to why this shit is horrific for privacy on it's face, but putting it aside:

If companies want access to every last drop of information, every last data point, even assuming an altruistic "we just want to make the best AI assistant we can" against all evidence to the contrary: then there needs to be set, and severe consequences for data breaches for these companies. No more of this "we put up a blog post about it and security researchers got an interview with CNN" no, fuck that shit. If Meta has a breach in it's AI product and as a result of that, whatever hacker org gets the full spread on let's say 5,000 individuals? Then those 5,000 individuals need to be entitled to damages. Firstly anything that impacts their lives needs to be unwound completely; new SSN, any money taken restored, help moving if required, whatever. Secondly they need to be compensated for the emotional toil of spending weeks or months sifting paperwork, sending letters, attending court dates to unwind whatever is done with their identity, and Meta is responsible for ALL of that.

If these companies want effectively root access to my life to provide these services, then I don't think it's unreasonable to say they need to be legally and financially responsible if their negligence causes people to get exposed. And if they're not prepared to take on that liability, then perhaps an AI assistant that knows everything about you is just a product that cannot be made.

I don't think this is an unreasonable view.