admiralteal @ admiralteal @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

795

Joined

2 yr. ago

As long as they don’t actually violate copyright in the classical sense of just copy pasting stuff...

As far as we know, that is exactly how they work. They are very, very complex systems for copying and pasting stuff.

And collages can be transformative enough to qualify for copyright

Sure, if they were made with human creativity they deserve the protections meant to keep creative humans alive. But who cares? They are not humans and thus do not get those protections.

Might be a valuable thing to do if not for the fact that Amazon reviews have basically zero quality control. If Amazon themselves didn't have corrupt motivations to host illegitimate reviews that mislead their own consumers into buying low-quality products.

But if you listen to Amazon reviews at this point, I have an off-brand bridge to sell you.

Chatbots don't have physical bodies that require food and shelter. So even if you could prove their creativity was identical to real human creativity and not a crude imitation more akin to assembling random collages, they still don't deserve the same protections as real artists with physical bodies that need food and shelter.

Which isn't even approaching the obvious retort that their creativity is a crude imitation of real creativity.

Copyright doesn't exist because there's some important moral value to the useful arts. It exists to keep food in bellies.

You're bending over backwards to protect bots as deserving identical rights to humans. For what purpose should they have those rights? The only benefit to treating the bots this way is to ensure the rich tech oligarchs that already have undue power and influence in our society get even richer and get even more influence.

...what do you think is going on here, in this thread?

It's talking about taking peoples' money based on your (fraudulent) ability to predict the outcome. There will be victims in the form of the people whose money was taken. Some of those people will see that the result didn't match. The fraud will be evident to the defrauded victims.

The one thing Reddit is great for, and for which substitutes do not yet exist, is its crowdsourced information. Especially product reviews. And finding those from within Reddit is impossible because their search simply does not work.

Appending "Reddit" to a Google search remains the best first-past method for making certain kinds of decisions where you need concrete, good-quality answers. Even for that, it's a bit of a minefield. Especially post-mod-purge, a lot of the once-great enthusiast subs have gotten pretty blase. Still better than all those consumer advertorial "BEST OF 2024" lists that you find everywhere full of extremely mediocre and likely corrupt reviews, but nothing compared to the straightforward buying guides you used to find.

On top of that, the "new" sight is a million times less usable than old.reddit.com and search engines shoot you in through that terrifically terrible gateway to experience confusingly-organized and incomplete content. Orders of magnitude worse on mobile, too.

If Reddit is de-indexed, I'll simply never be there at this point. Though I admit, I'm already there extremely rarely.

As I understand it, detecting an adblocker is a form of fingerprinting. Fingerprinting like this is a privacy violation unless there is first a consent process.

The outcome of this will be that consent for the detecting will be added to the TOS or as a modal and failing to consent will give up access to the service. It won't change Youtube's behavior, I don't think. But it could result in users being able to opt out of the anti-adblock... just that it also might be opting out of all of YouTube when they do it.

The human number is ALREADY vastly higher than the non-human number.

The only reason Amazon hasn't replaced them yet is that the technology has not been developed. Every dollar left on the table by workers right now will never be recouped.

The dumbest timeline is indeed the one we have -- living in times of nearly boundless plenty yet letting people starve and go homeless.

Amazon's not doing this to enrich and improve society. They're doing it to enrich and improve themselves. Fighting to keep bad jobs is what we do when the entire economic system has entirely given up on serving the needs of the public rather than private wealth.

It's not that we should force Amazon to not use robots to replace jobs. It's that we should force Amazon to contribute at least as much value to their communities as they extract, through any means possible. Unfortunately, in this idiot society, we think "being an employer" is the only reasonable way a company can contribute to its community.

Conceivably, to increase the performance of the humans WITHOUT making them lose their jobs.

These warehouses all act like they're perpetually short-staffed and under intense demand. If they boost overall performance, one reasonable outcome would be easier working conditions for the same workers, or shifting workers from jobs robots can do to other areas that were short-staffed.

It won't be because fuck the workers. But that possibility should exist.

You shouldn't even need to explain this, but thanks for doing it. That shit you replied to was a Ben Shapiro level of disingenuous bullshit argument.

The idea that Amazon will not replace every job they can regardless of unionization status is preposterous.

If they can automate the job, they already have every incentive to do so. This is not going to crack the whip.

Workers should unionize, period. The company is coming for them either way.

Doesn’t remove ads (take money from subscribers or advertisers, not both, also print media)

Tell that to all the advertorial content from e.g., the fossil fuel industry on The New York Times. Print news has been accepting money from advertisers while charging users since before internet ads were a thing. They just hide the ads in more insidious, corrupt ways.

Nowhere, not once, did I say we should stop tech from taking jobs. I didn't even imply that outcome. I would even say I directly contradicted that. Yet you introduced it as the easy-to-dunk-on premise and then proceeded to dunk on it.

It's a textbook strawman. Not only that, but it is the exact one I referenced in my post, so I guess I'll just copy and paste:

Workers speak out that they are being hurt by a new technology and need support and instead of hearing the pain and considering what support would be fair, they're instead painted as being anti-progress and told they should just lay down and get run over because the overall economy will still be fine in the end (and who cares if a few people are flattened in the process).

Right, that is the exact straw-man argument I was referring to.

We'll have self-driving cars in the next decade.

Disregard that this has been true for over a generation.

By the time self-driving cars are a thing available to the average person, we need to have already fundamentally changed our urban design to one that doesn't put the car at the center. For reasons of city financial sustainability, for environmental reasons, and for general "multi-modal cities are better to live in for nearly everyone" reasons. The cool thing is, the more changes like these we make, the easier and safer it will be to design self-driving cars. Safer roads are safer for everyone, even robots.

Basically, this argument is "yes the rich get richer, but the poor also appear better off so it's actually a good thing." Of course, it's confusing a correlation with a causation.

The reason the poor are better off isn't because the rich got richer -- it is because society stepped in, insisted on pro-social policies to lift up the poor like public schools, minimum wage, social safety nets, worker rights, equal protection under the law, and all manner of things.

The Luddites have over and over again been proved right by history. When machines take over, the machine owners benefit and the workers are hurt. When the workers are being crushed under heel, they are more likely to show solidarity and form social movements that force society to give back more, and thus they are lifted up. The idea that the automation itself is CAUSING that lifting up is a fallacy of broken windows.

It's flatly obnoxious that anyone is claiming that the rich are the reason the workers are better off when really the WORKERS are why the workers are better off and the rich are, at best, neutral bystanders except when they directly block the path of progress.

The argument in favor of the creative destruction of capitalism is used to thought-kill anyone advocating for social reform. Workers speak out that they are being hurt by a new technology and need support and instead of hearing the pain and considering what support would be fair, they're instead painted as being anti-progress and told they should just lay down and get run over because the overall economy will still be fine in the end (and who cares if a few people are flattened in the process).

I can imagine it.

I hate the average conservative at least as much as the average conservative hates women, minorities, non-Christians, and poor people.

Because the intolerant cannot be tolerated.

Does the "social media bump" definitely exist, especially for Twitter?

Even this article seems to indicate it didn't. Less than 2% of their page views were coming through Twitter. That's practically a rounding error, in spite of them at the time having quite a huge account.

Do people really click links and leave the site in any meaningful numbers? Click through, linger, read articles? Or do they just read the headline preview and then go off on their opinions? Especially for a serious, careful news organization like NPR, I really doubt it.

You're on Twitter to Tweet, not click links and read articles.

Twitter's value, I feel, was always in news discussion -- not article reading -- and #brand nonsense. There's really no good reason for any major news agency to be actively posting their content to it.