ori_b

First, prove you're not an AI, and then we can discuss whether being able to generate AI output indistinguishable from human output can cause harm.

Yeah, exactly, they're right, we're successfully making shit worse. Yay us.

We get it. AI slop is getting good enough to replace photography. This isn't good for humans, and makes the world a worse place.

The fact that the suck machine works isn't something to be proud of.

No. I think AI companies consume the result of intellectual work that should typically be paid for. If someone doesn't believe intellectual work should be paid for so that others can benefit, I invite them to lead the way.

That would be my preference, but if people really want to have free as in beer access to information, we can have that conversation. After these companies give people money for the commons that they're strip mining.

If you believe information deserves to be free, and if most of your earnings were from information that wasn't given away for free -- well, if you want people to give up their ill gotten gains, maybe you can start by setting an example.

So, mind sending me your bank account information? I'll promise to make good use of it.

Yes, the Anthropic settlement is far too small to distribute fairly. It seems like you think this makes the action that lead to this settlement justified?

Let's have that conversation after the people strip mining the livelihoods of creators cough up for UBI.

Good question. How many people that you know are in all three groups?

You mean human office workers, no?

If you want a modicum more job security, get hired to deliver packages for Amazon.

But we're all in on making it that way!

There's a reason that among Americans, telekinesis and creationism are more mainstream positions than sloptimism.

About 14% of Americans think AI is moving us towards a better world. About 17% are creationists. About 26% believe in Telekinesis.

It sounds like it didn't appeal to at least one atheist. Truth in advertising.

But it isn't.

Why does liking something different from you imply there's a war?

Do what? What is not happening today that you think would happen if people were given the right to repair?

You pretty clearly said everyone is currently bypassing this, otherwise companies would not be putting in larger engines. Is that wrong?

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Is this prevented today or not by the denial of the right to repair?

It sounds like you are saying everyone is doing it today, so denying the right to repair doesn't affect the situation.

You're right, the usage in the USA is bigger.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67704

Across all cases, servers alone accounted for an estimated 7% of commercial sector electricity consumption in 2025. Data center server electricity use grows to 22%–33% of commercial building electricity use by 2050 across our cases.

Distributing that outside of special purpose, optimized data centers isn't going to bring that number down.

> Apterus even respects opt-out notices in their collection of the dataset they distribute.

Yeah. Uh. That's the bare minimum.

Exactly. As long as they benefit in the short term, who cares about the damage done? Who knows, maybe you'll end up making enough money to avoid any future consequences, too. Good luck with that.

I'm not aware of any advanced models with full training data available, let alone available with paid licenses for the training data.

The process of training and using them is also not likely to be any better than commercial models. 23% of Ireland's power is going to data centers, spreading that among less efficient hardware in less efficient setups is unlikely to be better, unless the models are so bad nobody uses them.

And I'm also not aware of anyone working on these models trying to reduce the social damage they are going to do.

Are the solutions on stackoverflow licensed in a way that allows people to use them that way? Is this true for AI training data?

I'm not interested supporting in anyone who is willing to build on stolen property just so that we can accelerate enshittification and damage the environment. When the AI companies pay artists for their training material, stop building gas pipelines directly to data centers, and work on putting UBI in place before they try to replace all white collar labour, it may be worth revisiting.

There's a reason that believing AI is bringing a better world is a more fringe position than believing in telekinesis. The AI companies are strip-mining the commons, and leaving the world worse off for it.

Edit: it's interesting watching the votes on this bounce up and down between the people inside and outside of the pro-ai fringe react.

I sure can. Especially if you aren't paying me to use your unpleasant software.

This is an external audit. Why would Linux activity make a difference here? Are you theorizing that the churn causes bugs?

Vibecoded. Nope.

Surely the Therac would have made more money if they had covered up the deaths instead of fixing the bugs and owning up to them.

Why do you think they would compromise how good their software is merely to save lives?

Has your salary gone up to match your productivity, or are you giving it all away for free?

You're not one of the people who gets to benefit from the gains.

Beneficial for who?

Web technologies are significantly larger and more complex than framebuffers, and they don't even let you start arbitrary programs like Chrome under them.

So, uh... X11? VNC? RDP?