If they formally sunset the feature, there’s less of a case for someone to sue.
One can’t say they didn’t know or consent to their group chat info being used for training data if there’s no reason to assume your chat data is private
There are a number of projects working on evals that can check how 'smart' a model is, but the methodology is tricky.
One would want to run the exact same prompt, every day, at different times of the day, but if the eval prompt(s) are complex, the frontier lab could have a 'meta-cognitive' layer that looks for repetitive prompts, and either:
a) feeds the model a pre-written output to give to the user
b) dumbs down output for that specific prompt
Both cases defeat the purpose in different ways, and make a consistent gauge difficult. And it would make sense for them to do that since you're 'wasting' compute compared to the new prompts others are writing.
A theory that’s floating around is that since frontier models are so good at sounding like humans, companies paying for ads are arguing that Dead Internet Theory -> ad costs should go down.
Therefore, the push to ID everyone using the internet (even down to the hardware) is a way to prove that ads are being served to real humans in their target demographic.
If I had to guess it’s because GDP growth in industrialized countries are driven by financialization facilitated by cheap power and energy, and the countries that are more financialized don’t exactly want the countries with precious minerals to be industrialized enough to be self sufficient.
That’s why a lot of global south countries with valuable materials (oil, data center building blocks, etc) are often chronically destabilized, but not so much so that it’s impossible to find someone to buy unrefined materials from.
> All these “we” statements should be “me” statements.
And all of your sentences ought to have "I think that" at the beginning; while reading OPs message as a sign of victimhood instead of a statement of fact gives you the opportunity to sharpen your sense of self against it, it gives the appearance of signaling more than it gives actionable advice. otoh, if the former was your goal, I misread intent.
The nuance that's lost in the article:
- Game Devs are similar and different to SWEs. The differences are that most game devs are contractors, work long hours, usually get underpaid given the work they're doing(they're working with low level languages to make droplets on Spiderman's suit look realistic enough for Youtube commenters).
- AI is 'good enough' for a lot of industries, and will be continued to go to market when it's 'good enough' for a given industry.
- That said, AI in games as it stands is really buggy. A "Good Enough" relationship, dialogue tree, Social Graph LLM for a game might take so much time finetuning that it may always be better to just start with Twine or an excel sheet.
- Gamers (with a capital G) are different from gamers. Gamers are the gaming equivalent of armchair food critics. They hate AI, and will brigade anything with a whiff of it, and will demonize anyone or anything that pushes back on them, even if the Gamers are wrong (see the 'Baldurs Gate Xalavier' drama).
- The issue is that Gamers are the influencers that determine whether the long tail of games (games that aren't AAA mainstays, yearly sports games, or the top multiplayer games) get enough momentum and traction to pop up for less serious gamers.
- Gamers hate AI, and will do everything in their power to make every content creator 'acknowledge the controversy' (these 'cancel culture'-adjacent dynamics are all downstream from Gamergate). Comnsidering Gamers are often the enthusiasts most game studios need to swing digital game store algos in their favor, you don't want to build a game that becomes a 'stand-in for a controversial topic.'
- If the game is polished enough and is a AAA game that has a dedicated audience, it'll get bought in spite of that.
- If the game was AA or indie, the influencers who'd amplify the game in other instances will talk about it like the end of True Artistic Gaming.
- This leads to less MTX-like games getting funded, because the long tail of gamers are mobile, and most mobile games are miniaturized one-way casinos with WoW guild warfare grafted onto it.
- If there are more layoffs as the gaming industry's financiers go risk off for lower ROI games, then only the AAA, P2W, gacha, battle pass games get funded, which creates a feedback loop.
So yes, games as an industry will continue to rake in money because gacha games, battle passes, and MTX business models make the overwhelming majority of the industry's revenue. What's being missed is that what saved gaming from the ET gaming market crash and took it to $1 billion in sales for Counter Strike lootboxes was the passion and specialized labor of a lot of people. A lot of issues with game development preservation have accumulated (losing source code, laying off people who knew how to build critically acclaimed games before doing knowledge transfer, etc), and will compound as thousands of people get laid off, and people either dial in core parts of games, or outsource logic to an LLM.
The article acts as a lamentation, because the games that most people above the age of 20 grew up with are not going to be made as often anymore, unless there's some way to introduce a whale/guppy power dynamic with online play, or a battle pass, or gacha "Pay-to-Win" mechanic that pays for itself within a few weeks of launch.
they could, but a law enforcement agent looking for a suspect will send a lot of subpoenas to every porn site. When a porn site says "we wipe that data instead of storing it," the law enforcement agent will say "what do you mean you wipe KYC and identity verification trails once you get them? Are you letting sanctioned people use your site and covering your tracks?"
Similar thing happened to Valve; people were trading gun skins, and regulators fined them for not having AML/KYC controls because the state argued "the business didn't do enough to stop money laundering."
This trickles out to porn companies (and the vendors that use them for identity verification), and implies that they need to store this data to prove that they didn't delete it to help terrorists.
The core axiom is unfalsifiable because it hinges on asserting the intent, and relying on other unfalsifiable questions to try and ascertain intent ("why do decentralization if not to avoid legal risk of doing bad things?"), but the answers proposed by crypto proponents aren't ideals or scenarios that the writer empathizes with, it seems
I think Lens is using Polygon (storing interactions, social graph) and IPFS (storing media/content)
So in the context of Lens they're probably pointing to cat photos on IPFS in whatever program they have on Polygon. People seem to be maintaining content on IPFS (I'm no expert but I think via pinning services?)
> If you try monetizing every social media transaction you'll have no users. No one is going to pay money to post a picture of their breakfast or to change their profile picture.
I don't think these frontends are trying to monetize everything, as their users would come to the same conclusion you did. Polygon seems to be a lot cheaper than ETH (coinbase says it's like 50 cents vs $1000 for ETH), you can do a lot more on it for less.
I wonder if people will redeploy Lens on cheaper chains if the price goes up 100x or more?
I feel like launching a closed-loop digital art marketplace is way higher lift long term than an NFT marketplace, but don’t let me stop you from validating the “liquidity begets liquidity” saying
selection bias is so strong, that even if I walked you through exceptions to the things you don't like, you'd still fixate on those undesirable things, as if to say that the good-faith actors should stop acting in good faith and spend their time wagging their fingers at the things you don't like.
But complaining about something without taking the underlying behaviors in good faith and synthesizing alternatives doesn't really offer much for the people who are looking for the good things. That's why you won't get many good faith actors interacting with this, because it's better for them (and implicitly, the negation of your premise that it's all scams) for them to negate your arg by building more and more new things with crypto.
Respectfully, why would you take a water-vulnerable art piece onto a yacht, when:
1. Yachts are big targets
2. Art is a big target
3. Neither of these things will be post-civilization money, but will
4. Signal that you are a target full of assets that can be flipped for high value stuff
Which is all to say that these are information asymmetry problems, and everything frontier "isn't a durable investment" until it is. It's silly to dodge taxes on-chain when it's free and easy to pull a list of addresses that have the biggest on-chain value, look at how they're tagged on a block explorer, and figure out if they have a US entity that should have reporeted taxes on the transactional history
In addition to this, people on the left have talked about how certain pockets of YT (gaming, action movies, self help) quickly funnels people into a corner of YT that's rife with misogyny and pseudo-rationalist fallacies.
Also the term Monopoly has tricky denotations and connotations; if you read Thiel's work you'll be inclined to have a strict definition of Monopoly (Ex: an online retailer isn't a monopoly because people still buy most things Elsewhere), whereas some have a looser definition (where Online Retailer is defined as likely monopoly because it is online retailer for everything that it can be, while also tracking sales data and using a white label brand to undercut other brands' SKUs)
> Coinbase's stance there is fair, reasonable and moral
this is a self-evident conclusion being hawked as a premise, and the rest of the comment doesn't do much to mold this premise into an argument
> If Russ had a reason for quitting that was race-related then the NYT didn't uncover it.
There's an unfalsifiability in this rhetoric, because someone leaving for race-related reasons in an industry that either:
a) has "subtle racists"
b) is funded by "subtle racists"
c) functionally aids and/or abets "subtle racists" through inaction
would be incentivized to not specify these things, as these industries (finance and crypto) optimize for relationships almost as much (if not ==) to the amount they optimize for merit. And that's not even getting into clauses baked into employment termination contracts.
So you have a scenario where you can't actually "prove" race was a primary motivator for quitting because:
a) if it were a "subtle racist" co-worker, they're probably using euphemism
a2) if they're a "not subtle racist" co-worker, it would embarrass the employer for keeping that person on the book swhen the reputational cost exceeds the cost of sourcing and hiring someone who's not a not subtle racist"
b) If the person wants to work in tech again, relationships will likely be burned as a direct or indirect result of airing out a company's dirty laundry
c) Could be sued for violating non-disparagement clauses (prices out anyone who doesn't have the security to burn the bridge between them and a growth industry)
If the point of your comment was to use a number of premises that aren't empirical, and border on dogmatic, then I misunderstood, and apologize for trying to search for rhetoric where it was not intended to be found.
If the purpose of the statements above where to be rhetorical or logical, then we're getting into a place where we're asking for evidence that would be difficult for someone with said evidence to do without them, say, being financially and occupationally secure enough to burn the bridges between them and:
- Coinbase
- Coinbase's Investors
- Coinbase's Investors' LPs
- Coinbase's Investors' companies
- Every other company that either doesn't question whether they are less meritocratic than they believe, or doesn't question whether or not they can replace the problematic superstar employees
1) FB only turned back on ads so that they could get better data on how people market crypto projects (for their own blockchain team)
2) Added revenue
3) The article is very, very speculative; one could argue it's about as speculative as one of these vaporware token sales claiming they have a partnership with some major brand, and 20%+ of the copy is dedicated to building the hypothetical value of such a partnership.
Maybe someone made up the rumor as some last-ditch effort to make the price not go down
One can’t say they didn’t know or consent to their group chat info being used for training data if there’s no reason to assume your chat data is private