kjfaejgoaeijhei

the default windows browser has somewhere between a 5% and 13% market share. i think you're the one overestimating the power of defaults here.

if chrome ever ends up with a majority browser share on ios/ipados, apple won't have any way to keep up. at this point, google already almost 100% controls web standards, and they can push new features (no matter how privacy-hostile or overreaching) without even allowing apple the chance to keep up. at that point, the incentives for apple to keep developing safari would slowly dwindle away.

(oh, and gecko is a joke, especially on mobile - no need to even bring it up)

if you hate privacy, want more ai in your browser asap and don't care about battery life and performance, yeah, sure!

i kind of agree - although all of this does end up indirectly benefitting google. while the project is open source, they're the ones maintaining the project, and believing that they won't do anything they think they can get away with to grow their power and influence is extremely naive.

if safari dies, firefox won't be far behind, and by then there's no way a fork of chromium will be able to "keep up" when google starts pushing chrome-only features, killing ad-blockers etc etc etc

(not sure if any of this matters, though. will there even be any real people left on the web in a 5 years?)

to anyone who believes this is good news: enjoy your chrome monoculture in a few years when apple stops developing safari

That's an extremely interesting observation, it kind of reminds me of some of the traps bayesians sometimes fall into... (not saying bayesian reasoning can't be very useful)

Definitely interesting how LLMs seem to be very good at reinforcing confirmation bias...

You can read the original research article here: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.241776

It will tell you exactly where the numbers are coming from - the comparison is between (a variety of) LLMs and "expert-written summaries from NEJM Journal Watch".

The article doesn't, but you can go to the "more information" section and keep digging:

"To systematically assess differences between LLM-generated and human-written summaries, we also collected the corresponding expert-written summaries from NEJM Journal Watch (henceforth ‘NEJM JW’)"

To quote the article: "Chatbots were nearly five times more likely to produce broad generalisations than their human counterparts."

The following might be rude and unkind, but at this point frankly necessary: LLM apologists should stop projecting.