Surprising number of people taking this seriously.
Surprising number of people taking this seriously.
Seems like we’re going to be stuck in the uncanny valley of telepresence. The more fidelity we add, the more we’re able to pick up on microexpressions, subtle eye movements, and breathing, which helps trigger oxytocin and promote trust. But also, the more fidelity we add, the more attack surface we open up for malicious actors to exploit.
As it was with standardized testing, so shall it be with personal behavior: the goal is not to inform the student why, but to enforce compliance.
I haven’t tried it yet, but GrayJay purports to be an aggregator along those lines: https://grayjay.app/
Barely enough for the OS and one app
Aren’t MP3s just a statistical correlation?
Besides, you really don’t need to zoom in on “but muh license agreement” to roast these AI turds.
They’re very clear: We’re gonna put creatives out of work, we’re gonna sell a unified product to replace them, and we’re gonna use their own labor to build their replacements.
That’s anticompetitive.
Nail em on that instead of trying to thread the needle on reining in the tech lords without damaging e.g. linguistic analysis researchers.
Crash reporting, probably.
They gonna rat you out to the feds if you divide by zero.
The bullshit was your own chronic failure to get yourself together.
They did issue a fix: “Buy a new CPU please!”
That’s why they don’t mind the reputation hit. If 1 person swears allegiance to Intel as a result but 2 people buy new AMD chips, they’re still ahead. And people will forget eventually. But AMD won’t forget the Q3 2024 sales figures.
It’s worth checking out Louis Rossmann’s take too: https://youtu.be/TF4zH8bJDI8
I rarely ever find myself disagreeing with either of them, so this is an interesting situation.
Edit: This is also a good take about live service, separate from the “Stop Killing Games” initiative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO38QvKraTQ
At the risk of playing into the stereotype: But what about Ut Gravida?
This seems intractible.
Malware scanners want to run at as low a level as possible so they can catch stuff.
Fault-recovery mechanisms want to run at as low a level as possible so there are very few things that can cause a BSOD.
It seems like the only possible solution is “just never make any mistakes”.
Like, either don’t have any vulnerabilities that a user space scanner can’t catch, or don’t ever ship a bad update to a kernel mode scanner.
Jesse Ventura
The reason I’m skeptical of a copyright-based solution is that there’s a massive potential for collateral damage.
Like, the overall process of creating ChatGPT is not that different from the process of using ML to analyze how language use has changed over time, which I think is a completely positive thing for humanity and probably doesn’t ruffle anyone’s feathers.
I’m not sure how you write legislation that zeroes in on the exact harms posed by ChatGPT et. al. but doesn’t endanger these other efforts… and also doesn’t leave open an alternative, indirect route for OpenAI, Stability, et. al. to accomplish the same end goal without technically infringing.
There’s also the “giving a bullied kid more lunch money” criticism that Cory Doctorow is fond of using:
After 40 years of expanded copyright, we have a creative industry that’s larger and more profitable than ever, and yet the share of income going to creative workers has been in steady decline over that entire period. Every year, the share of creative income that creative workers can lay claim to declines, both proportionally and in real terms.
As with the mystery of Spotify’s payments, this isn’t a mystery at all. You just need to understand that when creators are stuck bargaining with a tiny, powerful cartel of movie, TV, music, publishing, streaming, games or app companies, it doesn’t matter how much copyright they have to bargain with. Giving a creative worker more copyright is like giving a bullied schoolkid more lunch-money. There’s no amount of money that will satisfy the bullies and leave enough left over for the kid to buy lunch. They just take everything.
Telling creative workers that they can solve their declining wages with more copyright is a denial that creative workers are workers at all. It treats us as entrepreneurial small businesses, LLCs with MFAs negotiating B2B with other companies. That’s how we lose.
Source: https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/21/off-the-menu/
You might be interested to see how FTC Chair Lina Khan thinks about this stuff, from a position which has a great deal of labor and antitrust regulatory power but no say in copyright: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mh8Z5pcJpg
Neutral mob with low HP. Won’t attack unless provoked. Not a threat except in large numbers.
Maybe we can? Depends what you mean by “all of it”. Care to elaborate?
They been sellin us out since the start. And they never even paid for us!