He spent a lot of money. I don't think he spent it for the concept (because that's straightforward) or the established backend. He bought the users.
He didn't want a platform where he could say what he wants. He wanted a platform where people who are resistant to change have to see what he has to say.
Are e-cigarettes less harmful than regular cigarettes?
Yes—but that doesn’t mean e-cigarettes are safe. E-cigarette aerosol generally contains fewer toxic chemicals than the deadly mix of 7,000 chemicals in smoke from regular cigarettes.3 However, e-cigarette aerosol is not harmless. It can contain harmful and potentially harmful substances, including nicotine, heavy metals like lead, volatile organic compounds, and cancer-causing agents.
The approach of tacitly allowing account sharing to build viewership then cracking down on it to boost revenue is smart enough as a business strategy. It signals what most of these companies will do when it comes time to really monetise.
It's less extreme than Hulu's method of going from an all free service to a subscription service. When you think about it from Hulu's perspective there's no way they would make less money and unlike social media sites like Twitter or Facebook the users' labor isn't the content. The movies and tv shows are.
AI is already better... than some people. A human using AI is probably better and faster at certain tasks than a somewhat skilled human is.
I bet midjourney is better at making concept art than the vast majority of the population.
I think we have a high threshold for success of AI. I saw a video a while back about how AlphaGo (an AI designed for playing Go) was able to beat a whole bunch of experts in Go. One expert used an atypical move and beat AlphaGo. People started reacting like "see? AI isn't impressive. This genius beat it." How many of us are geniuses? How often will geniuses beat better AI?
They cite their sources. I got paywalled by the Marcott paper, but that seems like it has data you're looking for. I think most of the referenced links are as follows:
The alternative is telling people that they shouldn't donate until Wikipedia is nearly bankrupt. If you want Wikipedia to exist, that doesn't sound like a wise plan.
It's not perfect, but it's definitely useful. I think of it like a free plane. If I need to visit my aunt in Florida I'll fly to an airport, but once I'm there I have to do extra legwork to get to the exact house.
True, but for the same big O they can salt the password for each user and compare it to what they have stored. My big pet peeve (that I've actually seen) is when they say your password is too similar to an old one. I have no idea how that could be reasonably done if they're storing your password correctly.
The average person doesn't know. I bet your parents don't check the privacy policy when they download an app.
The average person might not care. We live in an era where lots of people would literally put listening devices in their houses.
If you're already on Twitter, a decent amount of your data was already being shared anyways.
Most people go to different social media platforms because (paradoxically) people are on those platforms.
A decent amount of people might just dislike Musk because he calls people pedophiles for... helping kids or cucks for... making competing software??? So they'd rather give money to the next billionaire available.
They are largely mad because of how effective the AI is. If data was being used just to improve Swype for texting people would care less. I care more about artists' complaints about getting replaced than big tech companies complaining that content they didn't create is being used to create things.
Also I decided to read openAI's GPT2 paper and they were pretty clear about their created dataset:
"Instead, we created a new web scrape which emphasizes
document quality. To do this we only scraped web pages
which have been curated/filtered by humans. Manually
filtering a full web scrape would be exceptionally expensive
so as a starting point, we scraped all outbound links from
Reddit, a social media platform, which received at least 3
karma. This can be thought of as a heuristic indicator for
whether other users found the link interesting, educational,
or just funny.
The resulting dataset, WebText, contains the text subset
of these 45 million links."
That's a nice sized dataset from real people that's already somewhat filtered by quality. They were totally scraping Reddit very specifically and now that people see it's effective, anyone else who wants to make their own chatgpt or wants to improve their models will do the same.
He spent a lot of money. I don't think he spent it for the concept (because that's straightforward) or the established backend. He bought the users.
He didn't want a platform where he could say what he wants. He wanted a platform where people who are resistant to change have to see what he has to say.