Riverheart

(Edited)

No, he didn’t say anything about them. People side against their interests all the time, finding a few writers that like this is trivial. Are those people the majority opinion on this or are we just trying to prove how wonderful this technology is?

Part of the justification I’ve heard for wasting the scammers time is to limit the number of people they can interact with in a day. If wasting a scammer’s time prevents another innocent person from scammed then there’s a net benefit.

It’s unfortunate that some people need to do bad things to make a living but it’s an explanation of bad behavior, not a justification for it.

Mind you, I’m also sympathetic to the ways in which this practice could be abused.

“<Language> seems to have all sorts of crazy gotchas in addition to the weird syntax.”

Says everyone about every language.

The htmx library emulates what would be possible if browsers supported gets/posts on other html elements like buttons. It’s a library because no browser supports this natively.

Hey akling, since you’re building a browser I’ve got to ask, do you have any thoughts on https://htmx.org/ or whether it could be supported as part of some extension to Ladybird?

This isn’t about specialness, it’s about the foundations of civil society. People are meat and guts humans.

We’re autonomous entities capable of higher reasoning, limited in time, attention and talent and eventually die allowing new people time to flourish.

We also pay taxes and make silly arguments about software and humans being no different from each other because it justifies our ability to play with cool toys without considering the impact on other people. Corporations aren’t people though because they aren’t cool like AI.

Good reasons not to assign copyright to their output, at least not without some caveats.

These aren’t people. Just because we can find commonalities in learning and memorization does not mean we can ignore everything else that differs.

Humans aren’t software and laws were designed around humans for the benefit of other humans.

Or at least the last time I checked nobody had forked my brain on GitHub or uploaded me to Sourceforge.

Humans and software are not the same. Humans get a pass on regurgitating some stuff because our memories are fuzzy and more importantly we are not eternal, distributable entities that scale based on GPUs available.

Kim Peek is Greg and the difference between him and and AI is the text above.

“As an enthusiast am I supposed to be motivated by the page counter on my site?”

If you bothered to put a counter on your website, wanted to attract like minded individuals, or get enough people to sponsor you to continue work you otherwise couldn’t do, yeah probably. Or we can go with the unrealistic idea that enthusiasts as a whole don’t have egos or motives beyond shouting into the void to express their pure love of <insert thing>.

Obligatory Manna reference

“Manna told employees what to do simply by talking to them. Employees each put on a headset when they punched in. Manna had a voice synthesizer, and with its synthesized voice Manna told everyone exactly what to do through their headsets.”

https://marshallbrain.com/manna1

This comment is the same as jonahbenton’s just reworded, presumably via ChatGPT. Please don’t do this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35828235

Considering all the big companies laying people off recently, even those with enough capital to retain them, they don’t seem very concerned about that possibility. For what it’s worth I hope you’re right.

Counterpoint, companies do what they’ve always done and do more with less because big companies are run by MBAs, not idealists, and startups are difficult to bootstrap and manage.

I view it differently. Some people are not cut out for manual labor, lots of white collar work is intellectually stimulating in a way blue collar work isn’t, and a deluge of white collar workers competing for blue collar jobs will drive down wages.

End goal should be trying to give the next generation a better “cushy” life than the last. If harder work for less pay is what lies in the future then the future isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

As long as you’re paying more than they’re making in ads per person I think it’s fine but there’s nothing saying you can’t consume ads as well. Ideally the producer sets the donation price and provides a way to disable ads if you’re donating.

Extra revenue can come from higher pledges and merch but isn’t guaranteed.

This example is comparing apples to oranges.

We’re already paying for cable, we just watch ads because because there’s only one or two cable companies in town and they both show ads. If we could pay more to show no ads we would but it’s not an option. Netflix was letting us live the dream before every content producer decided to build their own streaming competitor, crippling their catalogue.

If you’re donating to GP skip their ads.

“But the argument from users is equally compelling, since advertisements prevent them from enjoying what they love. Everybody is acting rationally and I'm not sure I/we/society owes anyone the ability to make a living as a YouTube video producer.”

It’s rational for users to undercut the ability of the creators they like to make money and produce more content? Nobody is saying YouTube video producers deserve free money but if users continue consuming their content while blocking their ads/sponsorships/not supporting them on Patreon then they are the entitled ones, not the producers.

Ads suck, don’t get me wrong but blocking them on people you like is short term thinking and not fair to the producer.

The problem isn’t that people feel compelled to shill for advertisers the problem is that people need to make a living. The quality of their content has nothing to do whether they pursue it professionally or not.

“Find forms of content not likely to be used with this sort of thing, or that an AI generated video can easily replace (we're practically there already). Differentiate. Build your brand.”

So written word and video are off the table. What alternative forms of content are worth pursuing in your mind?

Good tool, does what it says on the tin and being command line driven means you can pass in a list of IPs and parse the results. Passing IPv6 addresses via pipe threw errors for me but xargs was an easy workaround.

Normally I’d use the subnet calculator on MXToolbox’s website for convenience but it doesn’t support IPv6.

You’re right, I can’t claim that it is. I understand that the models do not contain the original work.

But they are not simply sharing a single link and the “intent” is different. I personally feel that we should not treat human learning and AI learning the same. Unlike humans, the AI is essentially immortal and infinitely copiable.

It would be more like abetting copyright infringement by making it easier for scrappers to find content to train their models on. LAION isn’t posting a single link on their twitter account for their followers. It’s clear what this dataset is being used for.

Artists put content on the internet so you can look at it and share it with your friends and say “wow cool art” not so you can run it through an art generating model to put them out of job. That we never anticipated this possibility means you call fallback on the “fair use” argument but legal does not mean ethical, especially when the law has yet to catch up to changing times.

I guess how I feel is, if there are 50 new services that spring up overnight with different opt outs that would be annoying for people to deal with. If the website operator isn’t getting value out of the service they might just block you or put content behind an paywall and we all lose. =/

Also, the article claims the scraping generated so much traffic that it got reported to the owner as an attack. I’m not claiming anything other than what’s being reported. They should have at least throttled their application to reduce the load.

If the owner didn’t notice the scraping we might not even be having this conversation.

In their defense, most websites want to be indexed by Google.

If it is naive to disbelieve the founders foresaw a future in which automatic weapons and bullets would be so lightweight, cheap and accessible to civilians that anyone could buy them and go on a rampage by themselves that the State could not suppress without dozens of police and SWAT teams then I am naive.

Gatling Guns came well after the Founding, were large, heavy, hand cranked, cost between $1000 to $1500 to purchase and required a four man crew to operate. I don’t feel they can be compared to modern weapons.

The Founders were intelligent and capable men but they were not infallible. They knew that too, that’s why Amendments exist.

“if you wanted to say load all of a companies documents and ask questions it doesn't really work because this overflows the context.”

Azure Cognitive Services actually indexes company documents and then searches through them for the relevant information to provide context to ChatGPT to workaround the limited tokens.

Basics of Prompt Engineering with Azure OpenAI Service

8:54 https://youtu.be/QzZSJDxdUg0

What is what? If you mean distinguishing between AI and humans, it’s exactly what it sounds like. Fair use is a legal construct not a universal truth and subject to change like anything else. Just like how the US Founders writing the 2nd amendment with muskets in mind didn’t foresee full auto assault rifles in the hands of citizens. In hindsight, overly permissive law, all things not equal, hello gun control.

Well there are only two types of collars, blue and white. Is there another shore to swim towards? Pretty typical human behavior.