JonEFive @ JonEFive @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

334

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yeah, I agree. Their premise is faulty. Places serve tacos and quesadillas because they're cheap and easy to produce and many Americans like them, not simply because there are more Latinos in the US.

Now, if they said that there are more independent family-owned Mexican restaurants, I would consider that a bit more compelling.

I find this unacceptable

NACKTMULL and KOLANAKI at Tenagra

The words "anti trust" mean nothing in 2024. There are literally federal laws against businesses merging to form an unfair advantage and buying up all of their competitors like this. But anti trust laws are treated like those silly old timey laws like you cannot chain your alligator to a fire hydrant or you can't carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket. Yeah, technically they're on the books, but when's the last time they were truly enforced?

Shhhh... Don't let the evangelicals hear you say that

Error: package not found

These are some very pretty words that express ideas without much self-reflection on why the ideas might be bad.

I mean, I suppose you did say it yourself that you can't trust the US government... but why would you trust ANY government? You know why I trust Google more than any government? I understand Google's motivations ($$$). Put something into the hands of government and suddenly that thing is burdened by the desires of every politician and their special interest financiers.

"Place it in the hands of something like the UN" would mean some international body I assume. Comprised of and led by whom exactly? And also, who would fund the thing? You suggest nationalization, so.. taxpayers? Sure, here's your $99/year Degooglebase access fee tax I guess? And beyond just making sure there's enough money to keep the lights on, we need to make sure there's enough money to pay creators. After all, YouTube isn't just a library. It's an economy larger than some countries and there would be consequences to destabilizing that economy. People aren't just posting content for the love of the shared experience.

Please don't take what I'm saying here to be a defense of Google. Google is a shitty company for so many reasons. But advocating for nationalization of YouTube is just a horrifically bad idea in such manner as it was presented.

But - all is not lost. First: for the creators you enjoy - find ways to support them other than Google. Make it possible for them to continue when YouTube stops being lucrative enough.

Second: find, use, and advocate for the use of alternative services. There is no single site that is going to be able to replace YouTube. It simply isn't going to happen unless PornHub wants to step up to the game and create their own SFW site YouTube-killer. They have the infrastructure and capacity to host and share absolutely massive amounts of video and have the business capabilities to accept income and pass it on to creators on a large scale. But that's an entirely different discussion.

Best to look at things differently. Like the Fediverse and the internet itself, it might be better off if the platform were distributed.

Let's not pretend like Google isn't earning any money

It's almost like there should be some sort of cookbook with all these ideas of things that a happy citizen should never do...

You mean the always-on GPS-enabled internet-connected microphone and camera which is also likely Bluetooth and NFC beaconing and contains all of my most personal data including my name, contacts, unencrypted chats facilitated by major cell phone carriers, photos, emails, and other personal files which are also likely synced with a cloud service operated by major multi-national corporations, and also stores biometric data such as facial recognition, fingerprints, time spent sleeping, and even heart rate and number of steps taken assuming you have "fitness" features enabled?

With those last couple items, these massive companies that regularly share data with law enforcement are literally tracking your every step and nearly every beat of your heart.

Well don't worry about that, I've got Express VPN.

This is a scomulorf

Just getting back around to this.

My main reasoning is simply that authors and artists should be fairly credited and compensated for their work. If I create something and share it on the internet, I don't necessarily want a company to make money on that thing, especially if they're making money to my exclusion.

So while I belive that IP as we know it today is probably not be the best way to handle things, I still think creators should have some say over how their works are used and should receive some reasonable share when their works are used for profit. Without creators, those works wouldn't exist in the first place.

Are there other jobs where it would be okay to take a person's services without paying them? What would motivate people to continue providing those services?

Prompting for a source wouldn't satisfy me until I could trust that the AI wasn't hallucinating. After all, if GPT can make up facts about things like legal precedent or well documented events, why would I trust that its citations are legitimate?

And if the suggestion is that the person asking for the information double check the cited sources, maybe that's reasonable to request, but it somewhat defeats the original purpose.

Bing might be doing things differently though, so you might be right in your assessment on that front. I haven't played with their AI yet.

I tend to agree with your last point, especially because of the way the system has been bastardized over the years. What started out as well intentioned legislation to ensure that authors and artists maintain control over their work has become a contentious and litigious minefield that barely protects creators.

Curious about something, maybe you know since you work at a theater. I seem to remember hearing that a theater has to pay royalties each time they show a movie and that newer technology can track and report this automatically. Does the latest technology automatically track this as I recall? And if so, would playing a movie as a test count as a showing?

"As far as i’m concerned you and Pink are completely done."

I know the article calls this out too but WHAT!? I mean, good for this guy for having diverse tastes in music, but Pink went full pop basically in her second album. (If I recall correctly, it was a long time ago and I'm not a huge Pink fan). But Pink has never hidden her tendency towards activism.

And not to gatekeep, I get that people enjoy music for different reasons, but it just seems odd that someone would actually be a fan of Rage Against the Machine and expect anything less. And again, the guy acknowledges Rage's political activist nature in the article, but now it's apparently too much since he no longer agrees with their message. That sure sounds like "cancel culture" to me.

What are you on about?

You know what... Why not? It's no worse than MAGAts voting for Trump because "all the current politicians are corrupt, so let's vote for a non politician" and Taylor has an arguably better business acumen than Trump. As far as I know, she hasn't bankrupted any of her own businesses nor has she defrauded a charity bearing her name.

But I question her ability to make the difficult life or death decisions associated with the presidency. Armed conflict is a simple reality of the world today.

So who would be her running mate?

Your argument poses an interesting thought. Do machines have a right to fair use?

Humans can consume for the sake of enjoyment. Humans can consume without a specific purpose of compiling and delivering that information. Humans can do all this without having a specific goal of monetary gain. Software created by a for-profit privately held company is inherently created to consume data with the explicit purpose of generating monetary value. If that is the specific intent and design then all contributors should be compensated.

Then again, we can look no further than Google (the search engine, not the company) for an example that's a closely related to the current situation. Google can host excerpts of data from billions of websites and serve that data up upon request without compensating those site owners in any way. I would argue that Google is different though because it literally cites every single source. A search result isn't useful if we don't know what site the result came from.

And my final thought - are works that AI generates is truly transformative? I can see arguments that go either way.

Let me ask you this: when have you ever seen ChatGPT cite its sources and give appropriate credit to the original author?

If I were to just read the NYT and make money by simply summarizing articles and posting those summaries on my own website without adding anything to it like my own commentary and without giving credit to the author, that would rightfully be considered plagiarism.

This is a really interesting conundrum though. I would argue that AI isn't capable of original thought the way that humans are and therefore AI creators must provide due compensation to the authors and artists whose data they used.

AI is only giving back some amalgamation of words and concepts that it has been trained on. You might say that humans do the same, but that isn't exactly true. The human brain is a funny thing. It can forget, it can misremember. It can manipulate. It can exaggerate. It can plan. It can have irrational or emotional responses. AI can't really do those things on its own. It's just mimicking human behavior at best.

Most importantly to me though, AI is not capable of spontaneous thought. It is only capable of providing information that it has been trained on and only when prompted.