• 3 Posts
  • 550 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle

  • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoMemes@lemmy.mlJust sayin
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    But if you can’t summarize the solution to a complex societal problem with a history to it into a single simple sentence that can be used as a punchy “hot take”, clearly you just don’t want a solution! /s

    Way too many people in the world who are more willing to believe that things suck because everyone’s too stupid to try the “obvious” solution, instead of the fact that most societal issues are icebergs of complication and causes.


  • What? The only thing with any definitiveness in what you linked is that 72% of teachers are using an outdated method for teaching early level reading skills (letter and word recognition).

    As a secondary point, it says that teachers feel their kids can’t read anymore so the teachers have taken to tiktok about it.

    There’s nothing there indicating high levels of illiteracy, or that they’ve been caused by an over use of devices as babysitters, dawg.

    I think you need to brush up on your literacy.

    It sure as hell isn’t a good thing, and it isn’t helping kids read or develop, but this is the same argument that’s as old as fucking time itself where older adults blame new technology for degeneration of the youth. People literally made the same complaint about radio dramas leading the youth astray.

    The core of the issue is that it has become increasingly easy for parents to use technology to avoid properly taking care of their damn kids.








  • I think this is a misunderstanding of how most of the AI that feed into workflows work. Most of them don’t dynamically re-train live based off how users are using them. At least not outside of the context of that user/chat instance.

    Most likely what these and others are doing is to download pre-trained open source AI datasets thrn and run them locally so they aren’t restrained by any of the commercial AI’s limitations on what they will and won’t output to users. I highly doubt there’s enough material out there to truly train a new AI model on only explicitly racist material. This is just a bunch of assholes doing prompt engineering on open source models running locally.



  • Same, but surely you realize that ads have only gotten worse in the intervening time. I also don’t truly believe that we’ll ever reach critical mass on adblocker users. You’re asking people who don’t care, who don’t use the internet the same way we do, to suddenly care enough to take manual action outside of their knowledgebase amd comfort zone.

    The only way the adblocker user numbers get pumped up to critical mass for a change is if a popular default browser makes adblocking an opt-out default.


  • As well as predatory/not, there’s also a trend with attention grabbing/not.

    There was a period of time where Google AdWords ruled the online ad space, and most ads were pure text in a box with a border making the border between content and ads visually distinct.

    Kind of like having small portions of the newspaper classified section cut out and slapped around the webpage.

    I still disliked them, but they were fairly easy to look past, and you didn’t have to worry about the ad itself carrying a malware payload (just whatever they linked to).

    Companies found that those style ads get less clickthrough than flashier ones, and that there’s no quantifiable incentive to not make their ads as obnoxious as possible. So they optimized for the wrong metric: clickthrough vs sales by ad.

    More recently, companies have stepped up their tracking game so they can target sales by ad more effectively, but old habits die hard, and predatory ads that just want you to click have no incentive to care and “de-escalate” the obnoxiousness.



  • This isn’t about right or wrong though. It’s explicitly about whether or not they broke the law.

    They did. They did so loudly and proudly. This is why we are here, where they lost the legal battle.

    If someone is pointing a gun at you with their finger on the trigger, and you say “Just try to shoot me! I dare you! You know you won’t you little chickenshit.” then you should have a pretty good expectation to get shot.

    Everything else is valid, but significantly less important. IA has to operate in the rules that currently exist, not what the rules should be. There are better ways to get bad laws changed than to dare someone to find you guilty of them.

    Maybe this case will be the first building block towards overturning the asinine digital lending laws. I would love if it was, but I’m not holding my breath.



  • Yes, let’s just completely misrepresent someone and pretend it’s a quote! That’s fun!

    There are effective ways to challenge laws and to push for new rights. Loudly shouting “I don’t care about your rules, just try and stop me!” was not an effective way for IA to try and do this.

    Furthermore, IA constantly misrepresenting the problem and why they were sued in all their blog posts and press shit also does not help the cause.

    It’s a law in desperate need of abolishment, but this is not how you go about changing it.

    This also was not an effective way for them to ensure these books would continue to be available digitally for the public. They could have quietly leaked batches of the content that only they had out to the ebook piracy groups in a staggered fashion to help obsfucate where it was coming from, then hosted a blog post telling people how to pirate ebooks and where, with a cover your ass disclaimer that everyone needs to abide by their local laws.

    By any metric of success, the way they handled this set them up to lose from the start, and jeapordized one of the most important public resources in the current era. This would be understandable from some small operation of like 5 people trying to digitize shit, not from an organization as large and old as IA.

    I’m not the person who said he had no sympathy, but that is why I have little sympathy about all this: They don’t deserve this outcome, I wish they had won, and I hope the law gets overturned or revised… but they absolutely should have know better that to try and do this the way they did. They fucked around and found out. This coild have ended so much worse for them.




  • My guy, your posts are particularly hard to follow, and you are very very quick to jump to the conclusion that you’re somehow being targeted and under attack. It’s no surprise that people aren’t responding to what you think is appropriate for them to respond to.

    You’ve gone out of your way to provide extra info about irrelevant details: Why does the particular flavor of git you use matter at all to this conversation beyond the fact that you self host, why does it matter that you are on github as well when we are specifically discussing things you believe were sourced from readme.mds you have self hosted?

    Meanwhile you don’t give many details or explanation about the core thing you are trying to discuss, seemingly expecting people to be able to just follow your ramblings.

    Edit: After having re-read your OP, it’s less messy than I initially thought, but jesus christ man you need to work on arranging your points better. It shouldn’t take reading your main post, a few of your comments, and the main post again to get your point: “AI data scrapers appear to treat readme files as public data regardless of any anti-AI precautions or licensing you’ve tried to apply, and they appear to not only grab from github bit also from self-hosted git repositories.”