Communication is difficult. I felt like I gave a useful answer but evidentially it was not an answer for you. I hope someone else can answer your questions.
Has a software update ever changed something in a way you dislike? When it's proprietary software your choices are to:
tolerate the anti-feature
downgrade and keep using an older version instead (if feasible also has demerits)
hope someone reverse engineers a work-around
stop using the software
When the software is free (libre) then a communities can change it (e.g. removing an anti-feature) via the source code.
Sadly it's not enough to simply "then don't use it" - proprietary software proliferates society (interacting socially, with the government, with banks, etc). Since it's better to be in control of your own computing anyway then might as well promote the values of software freedom.
I'm unsure that using complicated algebra to regurgitate parts of people's works is different from just copying it. Perhaps you could say a human brain learning how to code is just regurgitating the code it's had as an input before, but intuition says directly copying is somehow different.
I add copyleft licenses to code to ensure the code cannot be legally copied into proprietary software, for moral beliefs. If the output of a LLM was free software and copyleft (as would be the input) then perhaps that would be fine. Github probably has some complicated legalese that says by uploading it you permit them to use it for LLMs - I'd want that to be legally voided.
Money to live is an important point but open source is still preferable to proprietary as any company shenanigans can be found, removed and the new version shared legally.
A universal basic income would allow software authors to more easily work on less profitable projects.
The harm this time is indeed less, but the potential for harm is still the same as Meta. There is always the temptation to use power over your SAS users for your own gain. Maybe one day they're a bigger company who think 'you know what, maybe it's better for the company that our users not swear'. Either way lets hope for libre, self-hosted alternatives.
Amazon will come into your house to take your digital copies of books you paid for (e.g. when they did that with 1984). No reason to think they wouldn't take physical books after they've violated your digital sovereignty - it is only a question of if that were to ever become a viable option for them.
A law to prevent spreading false history may sound good but I fear it's not a good solution. In bad hands the law can instead can attack history to promote a false one. If an inconvenient truth happens to looks like the dribble a Holocaust denier would say then good hands may punish an otherwise good person, promoting a different incorrect history.
I'm convinced I cannot trust anyone to judge - for me - what I should be able to read/hear. There must be better ways to defeat Nazism ideology.
Small teams are unable to take web browsers far in another direction as browsers have recklessly grown to one of the largest and most complicated software. Browsers do not follow the "do one thing well" philosophy, to the extreme.
Most functional parts of a browser (text reader, video player) are thankfully resistant to enshitification. That is if they are free (libre), permitting a fork.
There are no good options sometimes. I place my hope in GNU Taler as a means to send and accept payment in the future (it's anonymous for the buyer but the seller is identifiable for tax reasons).
We'll have to agree to disagree on the effectiveness of voting with wallets.
What would you call an example of 'real collective power'?
Individually we do not make much of a difference in anything but that's an excuse to avoid searching for a better company and often tolerating a worse offer (e.g. a fair trade product that costs more, or lacks modern features).
Change in politics certainly matters but your individual support of a political party in terms of one vote has practically no affect on the result in a winner-take-all/first-past-the-post voting system. Your individual "vote" in support of a company is at least a non-zero value, and sometimes is multiple "votes" per year.
People often say it would be better if just more people voted, but that's only helpful for them because they imagine they would vote for the main party they like the most. I doubt that's the case. The most important structural reform imo is to increase the representation of the public in government - and it's not a main party's self interests to do that. Voting is unlikely to change that.
If you're in a country with a two party system then voting has even less impact that than giving your money to a more worthwhile company.
Consumption is not expressing support.
You may not support them with your words but giving them money is literally support. Like giving a horse an apple and then saying you're not feeding it.
tabular @ tabular @lemmy.world Posts 1Comments 1,176Joined 2 yr. ago
Communication is difficult. I felt like I gave a useful answer but evidentially it was not an answer for you. I hope someone else can answer your questions.