this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2026
256 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

87417 readers
3868 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] manxu@piefed.social 87 points 1 month ago (4 children)

It's weird that high tech CEOs didn't learn the most valuable lesson from the Metaverse: people are not stupid. If they don't like something, selling it to them harder is not going to make them like it more. It's simply not solving their life's problems.

AI behaves much the same way. It's not that it's useless, it's that faced with the actual cost, its usefulness shrinks to almost nothing. People dislike AI because they know better, not because they are too stupid to see.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 52 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I honestly think a lot of the people pushing this stuff know very well that they don't need it to succeed. They don't really care if the general public hates it, and it flops. As long as they can convince investors, they're pulling yearly paycheques and bonuses in the tens of millions of dollars. If it flops, some thousand employees (thralls) will be layed off. If it fails catastrophically, they might need to step down themselves, and move to a different company that "appreciates their ability to be a visionary".

These people are only capable of failing upwards, and they know it. The name of the game for them is waving their arms and blabbering about something to draw in investor money.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Nah. Meta needs something to grow.

Right now, they are sitting on social media platforms that can't see meaningful growth and a messaging platform near the same. Nothing that Meta has tried to create after either defends their existing revenue streams from dying or creates a new revenue stream.

Without significant change, Meta is a decade away from being another AOL.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's definitely true, but the question is do the execs really care? I think that for a lot of these people, the only thing that matters is whether they can keep pulling those sweet sweet cash-outs. Just look at the absurd bonuses musk was promised from tesla recently. If he really cared about the success of the company, he wouldn't take those, he would take a fair paycheque and allow the company to reinvest the rest of the money. Instead, he requires massive bonuses to keep working. We're talking about the kind of money that could fund the entire educational sector in a small country for many years. He's taking that out as a personal bonus, to the detriment of the company.

That kind of thing makes me believe that he doesn't really care about the long-term success of the company. What he really cares about is squeezing out cash from the company for as long as possible. If the company fails, he has enough money to buy up something else that he can squeeze cash out of. The modus operandi is basically

  1. Be rich
  2. Buy some company
  3. Wave your arms and wag your tung to get investor money into the company
  4. Cash out bonuses
  5. Go to step 3 until your cash-out has surpassed the investment cost
  6. Either sell out of company (if it's been run to the ground), or go to step 3 until it has been.
[–] TheOakTree@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

I agree with you, but... wag your tung?

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

It’s a problem they inflicted upon themselves. They made everything about growth and once they actually go damn near everyone in their platform, growth was impossible. So the only thing to do is shrink.

And they cannot survive that.

[–] baggachipz@sh.itjust.works 32 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

people are not stupid

Uh. Looks around at the state of the world

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah, you make people depend on your product, lobby for a monopoly, and keep your captive audience just enough above starvation to not revolt. Like the healthcare system. Or gas companies. Or semiconductor companies. Or housing owners.

[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It will not stop being funny that Zuck named the whole company after this failed shit. Hope “AI” will join it in the overhyped tech graveyard in a few years

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

He should be calling it "metAI" in anticipation of its upcoming "success"

[–] Sirius006@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

"met" is for methamphetamine. "AI" is for glorified chatbot.

[–] realitista@lemmus.org 27 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If they had been smart, they would have bought VRchat and Rec Room and left the teams alone to figure out how to merge those existing worlds and grow organically from there.

[–] zurohki@aussie.zone 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That couldn't possibly have become a trillion dollar business, though. That was the fantasy they were selling to investors, a future where people would be living their whole lives in Meta's virtual corporate dystopia.

[–] PabloSexcrowbar@piefed.social 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sure it could have. They just needed to bolt a payment processor onto the whole mess and they'd have been printing money.

[–] zurohki@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago

They'd be printing millions, but they need the promise of future trillions to try and maintain their status as a growth stock.

[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 25 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Will Meta also rename themselves when the shutdown occurs?

[–] realitista@lemmus.org 21 points 1 month ago

Yes to AIslop

[–] crandlecan@mander.xyz 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Meta F(utures) U(nlimited)

[–] crandlecan@mander.xyz 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Meta FU? I ain't gonna lie, that sounds sus.

[–] EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Good, I made it up as a joke.

[–] crandlecan@mander.xyz 4 points 1 month ago

🫩🤯

😁

[–] ace_garp@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

When you read Stephenson and miss the point altogether.

[–] Waterpumpee@lemmus.org 14 points 1 month ago

Who has the time to play in the metaverse? To actually put up with VR or normal gaming even you need to have 1+ consecutive hours to spend. Grown ups dont have that kind of time. Wasnt meta one of the first companies to jump the RTO bandwagon? Even further diminishing the little time we have...

[–] Rubanski@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Anybody who tried VR chat instantly saw what an absolute failure the "metaverse" was. Still my most played VR game by a lot. i will never forget playing beer pong with Link or having deep technical discussions with an Australian salamander chilling on a couch.

[–] perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Anyone who spent time in Second Life would know that user-generated worlds are terrible for graphical performance, because people want to stick in as much content as possible and don't approach it in the same methodical way as a game designer would.

So in SL that gets you sims with 3 fps on a good graphics card, and people who are greyed out because their clothing complexity exceeds your graphics limits. Now imagine wearing that 3fps glitchiness in a VR headset.

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

You can incentivize or gamify standards adherence that leads to better performance but that was never the priority there and it’s not what people cared for anyway. It was a social thing with the most bizarre griefing.

I miss the days of orbit cages, grey-goo reproducing bouncing dicks, the crowded hubs with devastating shade even a coked up drag queen would argue went too far, breaking into intricately protected properties by sitting in a cube you built in a neighboring lot and dragged over, just so much weirdness.

[–] Stupidmanager@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I will repeat this over and over. AI is not for you or for me, we are users of the byproduct which is money exchange. Look at search engines, google is perfect example. AI just makes it so that we users can make simple queries and get answers, Google did that too and then became this monster which makes absolutely nothing, but searching the internet is easier and billions in ad revenue.

Some may argue there are some of us power users find beneficial use of AI, but we are small subset of users who in many cases were already smart enough to do the work. I love cowork for that reason, I share code I’ve written, projects with epics and work items and cowork makes the next project just like I did. What took a week, takes hours. Time which I now spend learning the next actual thing, quantum computing.

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

For those who are fed up by Google's shitty searches, try Qwant!

Kagi is also good, but it's paid.

[–] _Nemo_@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Qwant is nice, but it keeps blocking my VPN and locks me out if I happen to use a non-European exit node ("We're not offering Qwant in your region"). And I'm not pulling down my mask for a fucking search engine.

If you're willing to put up with Duckduckgo but hate AI search, there's https://noai.duckduckgo.com/

[–] greatwhitebuffalo41@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I tried Kagi for a month. Several times I got "we couldn't find what you were looking for" and the limit of 300 searches a month, even if I'm not going to hit that I FELT limited. I wanted to like it but it's not for me.

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That sucks. I feel like if it can't find what you're looking for it shouldn't count it. Have you tried Qwant?

[–] greatwhitebuffalo41@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not yet, this is the first I've heard of it

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago

I've found it to be mostly pretty good so far.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (3 children)

That's what got me about the metaverse too: an astonishing wealth of junk content. I got through all the games and videos and experiences I wanted in less than six months, and clearly I'm not the only one.

I do love VR documentaries though and hope those continue to thrive.

[–] amgine@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There’s a YouTuber called redlyne_ that has a video series where he goes through dead online games. It’s great content

[–] toynbee@piefed.social 3 points 1 month ago

Waydot also does this (as well as other, related content).

[–] Rubanski@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago

It might be as big of a banger as the fyre festival documentary

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

What's a good source for those vr documentaries?

[–] Xerxos@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago

They tried to sell a nothing burger.

What did they offer? A boring VR world.

They should have tried to copy a known hit game to VR, like Minecraft, Sims, Second Life, or any of the popular shooter games... Of course, with enough changes not to get sued.

After a successful start and a loyal player base, the chatrooms and monetization might have worked.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Car park for a virtual store?

[–] justaman123@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

It seems the biggest hurdle for the tech czars who did one visionary thing is that once they get to that level they are so disconnected from people that their entire perspective shifts and therefore can no longer see something that would appeal to all of us, and only see something that they want. Because when they did make the visionary thing it was something they wanted.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Lots of user generated content across most platforms is poorly designed nonsense.

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Linden Labs did the same thing forever ago, with worse tech and a much smaller budget, and it was hoppin at its peak but now it too is a ghost town.

It’s actually quite sad. The ridiculous troll shit there was hysterical, and some of the worlds they made were intricate and mesmerizing.

Meta never had that because they never cared to foster a community. It’s all brand names and logos and nothing people actually wanted.

Zuckerberg doesn’t know his market base. He’s just so rich it will take a very long time for him to get a read on this.

[–] kip@piefed.zip 1 points 1 month ago

voices of American children [...] “Five thousand hamburgers please”

art, life, satire dead, blah blah