I was pretty surprised by the barrenness of my wishlist. There’s been shockingly few titles I’ve been that excited about. Almost nothing in the AAA realm. And the few things that I am waiting to come out have been on that list for several years already…
This is the dumb kind of “best do nothing, because both no is perfect” approach to making sure no disincentives are ever taken because someone somewhere else might also try to do the illegal thing that they’ll lose access to the moment they’re caught…
I never suggested destroying the technology that is “AI”. I’m not uncomfortable about AI, I’ve even considered pivoting my career in that direction.
I suggested destroying the particular implementation that was trained on the illegitimate data. If someone can recreate it using legitimate data, GREAT. That’s what we want to happen. The tool isn’t the problem. It’s the method they’re using to train them.
Please don’t make up random ass narratives I never even hunted at, and then argue against them.
That’s stupid. The damage is still done to the owner of that data used illegally. Make them destroy it.
But when you levy such miniscule fines that are less than they stand to make from it, it’s just a cost of business. Fines can work if they were appropriate to the value derived.
Most AI are not built to answer questions. They’re designed to act as some kind of detection/filter heuristic to identify specific things about an input that leads to a desired output.
If you can still use it after you stole it, as opposed to not being able to use it at all… Then it does give you an incentive
It wouldn’t be. It would still work. It just wouldn’t be exclusively available to the group that created it-any competitive advantage is lost.
But all of this ignores the real issue - you’re not really punishing the use of unauthorized data. Those who owned that data are still harmed by this.
Making it open source doesn’t change how it works. It doesn’t need the data after it’s been trained. Most of these AIs are just figuring out patterns to look for in the new data it comes across.
Yes, you’re all doing it wrong…by doing it at all.
What dumbass is letting AI post articles without human oversight? That’s like rule one of what not to do.
These people didn’t play Witcher 3. It’s mostly right wing rage bait podcasts. They’ll move on to a different side thing to be mad about in a few days.
Mastodon is confusing as shit though. They could have made is not as confusing, but this is what happens when you get backend only developers designing the front end of a product.
Ugh, Google+ was so much better than Facebook. The whole circles concept was a game changer for social media that no one else has really adopted in a meaningful way. Half the reason millennials began to leave Facebook was not wanting their parents seeing what they’re posting, so being able to decide which group can see a particular post was an awesome idea.
Sadly it just never got the adoption
No, Twitter changed its algorithms leading up to the election. That was not self selection. They were actively pushing right wing bullshit down everyone’s throats because the owner spent $200 million trying to get the dipshit elected.
Which is no different from any of the US social media companies tweaking their algorithms against criticism of all number of political things.
Twitter blatantly forced right wing radical propaganda down their entire user bases through a for months. Facebook was selling user data to foreign influence groups to assist with political message targeting. They’re all the same.
Except all the social media are doing the exact same thing. This is pointless political posturing
This was about bluesky/Twitter type social media. Things with reshare and follows to specific users, where someone you follow arguing with someone you don’t will expose you to the person you don’t follow.
Those still aren’t bots. Bot farms are literally a bunch of servers running computer programs. That’s not the same thing as some online sweatshop pushing disinformation manually.
It decreases the spread. Cutting form the engagement means free people who aren’t already subscribed to that content will see it, since there’s fewer people arguing with it. Which means those who are susceptible to falling for it have less chance to even encounter it, meaning fewer fall into it.
Even if the incentive to create the trolls has changed, the counter to letting it spread hasn’t.
This shows you think all AI are LLMs or generative art. Those are only the most visible faces of the tech, and you’re showing your name ignorance of the field.