MPC is just a JSON syntax for RPC over HTTP (or stdio).

That's the solution they don't like. Rather exclude children and annoy people with content they didn't ask for than remove the anti-patterns. For modern social media you can't even call it enshittification as newer services have such features right from the start. They know exactly what they are doing.

And they intentionally give you some content that you dislike to stir engagement. Every "Slop! Slop yourself!" discussion means people spend time on their site discussing shit instead of touching grass.

Quite a few times, as the summaries generated are mostly just that, summaries. For more information you either read the related links or ask a full chatbot. People always say "Gemini sucks" and think of the box above their search results, but that's literally the result of their smallest model.

Ask Intel if security fixes can slow down your CPU ...

What is "the AI"? You need to specify the model (and version or at least date so one can estimate what version it was) for a useful critique.

Do you think the 101st answer for a question answered 100 times before is of value?
I think the parent phrased it right. You get now rewarded for contributing new knowledge, not for parroting something said a hundred times before. Providing something new unfortunately means you need to do more than just find one of the 100 answers, change the writing style and put your own sponsor links in the text to score online points. Maybe we get back to the old web, where people published online because they wanted to contribute and not because they wanted to get many clicks.

Google puts favicons of sites next to its answer, perplexity also links all the sources. If you need to know more, click the source links.
Google and duckduckgo just stupidly summarize the top search results (thus also amplifying bullshit in the results), perplexity follows more links than just the first level from the search results, but also adds citations to its claims.

Why not just choose who you follow? Algorithmic feeds are the problem, they should let the people spam slop ... and keep it out of your feed, if you don't follow them.

If your article can be replaced with a three line summary, your article is not worth my click.

Regenerate Brandan Eich?

Now assume a false positive. A user honestly marks something as "AI Slop" even though it is human slop. Now a human operator gets the post together with the bias "marked as 'AI slop'". They will not only see the same indicators that fooled the first human, but also have confirmation bias that 95% of what they get to see is AI generated, so this one probably is as well. Human moderation will not save you here.

You talk like SEO would not have been a problem before. Google is unusable since longer than AI can generate coherent sentences.

The feature is exactly the opposite: Other than other tools, the Amazon tool has a feature that tries to find if code is similar to existing code. This feature can be turned off. So the difference is here, that the feature tries to find similar code at all, even though you usually don't need to.

Please read my post. It said exactly that: The public domain part remains in public domain. But in most cases it is not useful without the GPL part of the rest of the software, so any use will be covered by GPL.

The burden of proof for the switches is on you.

And you're moving the goalpost when you say "I can use a harness that fetches code from somewhere else"