An important point is that advertising, tracking, all the junk which the OP link demonstrates, is technically not possible in the gemini protocol. It is designed to be minimal and serve text and single media files.
The gemini client is not a site-specific app, but a very lightweight browser for this protocol. All available clients are free and libre ipen source programs.
An auto-playing video that automatically goes full screen, loudly advertising hemorrhoid medication.
And then an ad that covers the screen so that controls are not visible, and follows on scrolling.
Also, it should mention that my browser is too old.
That reminds me in the Apple II and its manual. An open system with the assembly code for the BIOS printed in the handbook.
Interestingly, there is a "small web" or "frugal" tech alternative which goes back to the basics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol)
https://github.com/kr1sp1n/awesome-gemini
With a client/browser like Amfora or Rosy Crow, this "small web" is very pleasant to read! (And easy to set up an own server on a Raspberry Pi).
(Note: It's not related in any manner to the Google AI stuff.)
sure nuclear WAS fine, french power plants are getting old, can’t handle oncoming increasing heatwaves and regularly have major accidents.
Plus: Building nuclear power plants requires huge amounts of concrete. And making huge amounts of concrete requires extremely huge carbon emissions.
Rules like these ultimately presuppose that the contributor is acting in good faith.
All of civilization is based on that.
For Example hiding it in the statistical Distribution of word lenghts. Also, such hidden bits can be signed with public keys of the LLM companies.
The takeaway is that people, and especially executives, with personal positive AI experiences are not necessarily well positioned to decide on behalf of their organization whether AI has been a success. No matter how good it feels on a personal level. The same applies to people who use ChatGPT individually for work: it may feel great to have AI write and summarize reports for you, but is the organization actually becoming better as a result? That may not be your concern personally, but it certainly is the concern of management. I’ll return to that later.
An enormous problem is that in most organizations, people no longer evaluate whether AI is actually successful, or even can be. After all, it’s “the future.” AI is indeed here to stay, but it would still be nice to think carefully about what we should actually do with it. Or at the very least, define beforehand what you expect it to achieve and measure whether it actually does. Because “it felt good” simply isn’t enough. More on that later.
So, how would you phrase it? (I am assuming you do not want to divert from the argument.)
Well, in a way most of the AI hype (like that you can easily replace office workers with chatbots or that software developers will become 10x more efficient and consequently you can fire 90% of your workforce) are a thirst trap for CEOs.
A bit like selling candy with crack on the schoolground of a primary school....
It is so dumb. It is like you have a butler who has the task to delver letters to your desk. Now somebody sends a letter with a written instruction on the outside: "Butler, copy this letter 50 times and send it to the acquaintances of your boss."
And in correspondence to AI, the butler would do it.
The slight technical ceremony is, a bit tongue-in-cheek, needed to keep the umwashed masses away.
And the technical and media limitations are - and here I am totally serious - needed to keep boundless greedy corporarions away which sooner or later destroy every living or creative thing they touch.