subignition
Other accounts:
@subignition@kbin.social (dead?)
@subignition@fedia.io
I am WAY too unqualified to understand any of the technical stuff, so I’ll be waiting to hear thoughts from experts on this one. It looks like if there are no major flaws in it this is a great thing for the platform overall.
If functionality exists in the client app, there’s nothing to be done to stop someone from bypassing checks.
Looking into it further this looks like it’s an API between the backend of a service and Google though. That would be difficult to defeat, but you could probably spoof the identity of the requesting device with enough effort
It’s not like dedicated people aren’t going to be able to just patch out the calls to this API from the apps themselves…
This feels like yet another attempt at DRM that is doing more harm than help.
They’re pretty reasonable for consensus-based programming prompts as well like “Compare and contrast popular libraries for {use case} in {language}” or “I want to achieve {goal/feature} in {summary of project technologies}, what are some ways I could structure this?”
Of course you still shouldn’t treat any of the output as factual without verifying it. But at least in the former case, I’ve found it more useful than traditional search engines to generate leads to look into, even if I discard some or all of the specific information it asserts
Edit: Which is largely due to traditional search engines getting worse and worse in recent years, sadly
As long as it has good writing… and maybe they turn down the crudity a touch… I think it has the potential to be well-received.