Link to the video. I agree, it was a really good video on this topic and how wrong it is philosophically.
Link to the video. I agree, it was a really good video on this topic and how wrong it is philosophically.
The internet as we knew it is doomed to be full of ai garbage. It’s a signal to noise ratio issue. It’s also part of the reason the fediverse and smaller moderated interconnected communities are so important: it keeps users more honest by making moderators more common and, if you want to, you can strictly moderate against AI generated content.
This is a false equivalency.
Google used to act as a directory for the internet along with other web search services. In court, they argued that the content they scrapped wasn’t easily accessible through the searches alone and had statistical proof that the search engine was helping bring people to more websites, not preventing them from going. At the time, they were right. This was the “good” era of Google, a different time period and company entirely.
Since then, Google has parsed even more data, made that data easily available in the google search results pages directly (avoiding link click-throughs), increased the number of services they provide to the degree that they have a conflict of interest on the data they collect and a vested interest in keeping people “on google” and off the other parts of the web, and participated in the same bullshit policies that OpenAI started with their Gemini project. Whatever win they had in the 2000s against book publishers, it could be argued that the rights they were “afforded” back in those days were contingent on them being good-faith participants and not competitors. OpenAI and “summary” models that fail to reference sources with direct links, make hugely inaccurate statements, and generate “infinite content” by mashing together letters in the worlds most complicated markov chain fit in this category.
It turns out, if you’re afforded the rights to something on a technicality, it’s actually pretty dumb to become brazen and assume that you can push these rights to the breaking point.
If he wins this, I guess everyone should just make their Jellyfin servers public.
Because if rich tech bros get to opt out of our copyright system, I don’t see why the hell normal people have to abide by it.
In reality, mastodon doesn’t achieve the same dopamine hit by design. This is both a good thing (less addictive, more conversational) and a bad thing (less retention, more opaqueness in statistics) depending on why you want to use or don’t want to use social networks.
Awesome,
but I wonder if we’ll ever get better read and write counts on SD cards. It feels like the size is getting larger than the amount of possible writes to the device, making it kind of moot.
Yeah, I actually think this policy is 100% correct and, if more services did this instead of eating the costs, we could have a real discussion about the harm caused by arbitrary fees.
It will likely result in Apple seeking a special deal with Patreon to avoid this mess though. It’s really not a good look for Apple especially as they cater themselves to the creatives market.
This is the craziest fucking timeline.
It goes to show streaming services are not long for this world with the introduction of AI.