In a lot of ways, the statistical processing is a novel form of
information retrieval. So the issue is somewhat like if 20 years ago
Google was indexing the web, then decided to just rehost all the
indexed content on their own servers and monetize the views instead
linking to the original source of the content.
If reading something is hurting your feelings, you can stop reading it.
Twitter even provides mute, block, and whatnot functionality to prevent specified things from even showing up in your line of sight to begin with. And if the app is really bothering you, you can always set it down and go outside, take a walk, meet somebody new, do something that will put a smile on your face on your deathbed.
Lumping in mean comments online, with actual abuse is approaching risible. Words have meanings, we shouldn’t dilute or distort them.
By Twitter “not taking action,” sounds like your friend is upset that he or she can no longer co-opt the proprietors of the site into enacting punitive measures on people who draw his or her ire.
Maybe some mean things were said or whatever, but at the end of the day it’s just text on a screen isn’t it? And there’s a lot more to life than text on a screen, isn’t there?
It’s also weird how you mention the technical functioning of the site, then bring up the “Trust & Safety Org” when the legacy of “Trust & Safety” is a small cabal with extremist views arbitrarily deciding what information to censor and suppress based on their own viewpoints, whims, and influence from government agencies.
That has nothing to do with the technical functioning of the site which is a matter of reproducible, specifiable, determinate functions implemented in computer code to produce a useful product. The kind of thing that really turns the mind of an autist on.
P.S. Not to be too blasé about your friend, mean words can be an issue, especially an ongoing pattern, but anonymous strangers online seems like less of an issue than irl, and was this really an issue where block or mute wasn’t sufficient? How so?
Human habitation and influence on the landscape in the Amazon seems far more extensive in scope and duration than previously thought, based on recent discoveries.
The significance of the second link is ancient peoples further north and in other parts of the Americas don’t share this genetic link, indicating a longer timeline of human habitation in the region than previously thought.
In considering these things, affordances must be made to the new abilities made possible by the computational tools now at our disposal.
Following your line of reasoning if it is perfectly legal to walk into a coffee shop and sit down and listen to what the people next to me are talking about, commit it to memory, even make notes about it, does it then follow that it should be perfectly legal, reasonable, and acceptable for a govt agency or some other organization to put microphones everywhere to record what everyone is talking about, then feed all this data into various databases and modeling systems?
Reciting something in a park is different than selling a copyrighted print of something in a park when you don’t hold the copyright. Which is much closer to what the NYT is accusing OpenAI of.
The training data not “existing” in the model is interesting, but at some point, a distinction without a difference.
If I hire an autistic savant to go to a library and read all the books, then I set up a book selling service where whenever people want to buy a book I have my savant employee type out the book for them, is it then going to pass muster in a copyright case if I tell the judge “It’s okay actually, because the books don’t actually exist in my employee’s brain, merely neuronal encodings of them.” ?
If I have a copyrighted image on which I don’t hold the copyright. But I want to start selling it to people, is it cool if I just run it through a lossless compression algorithm, thereby generating a new encoding of the information and then sell this new encoding along with the software and command to reverse the compression?
Regarding the open source stuff, there I think you might find more favor to your arguments.
But the stuff we are seeing within commercial enterprises like OpenAI and Midjourney is clearly copyright infringement.
And I don’t see copyright law being insane in these cases.
You seem to have misunderstood what I was meaning to convey.
I wasn’t even meaning to say much in the way of the virtues or not of piracy, or the legitimacy of copyright in it’s present form.
If Google, YouTube, Dropbox didn’t exist you could still share files with your friends.
Sharing a file with a friend and him benefiting in some way from that is a different thing entirely than massive centralizing corporations flouting copyright rules to benefit commercially and increase their power.
Without Google, YouTube, and Dropbox, copyrighted material would just be where the copyright holder deemed and authorized it to be.
(save some amount of piracy of course)
It would actually be more in line with the “Internet idea” of a decentralized network, not a massive hub and spoke arrangement.
Saying, “Hey, we already have some big corporations where copyright infringement plays some role in their business model, why not add a few more in the form of “Open”AI, and whoever else.” Is not a good argument.
The centralized server farms and behemoth corporations are in many ways representative of what the commercial internet has become, but are not a fulfillment of the original “internet idea.”
What’s your sense about SETI or the Fermi paradox, if a signal becomes so vastly diluted just within our solar system?
I’m sure the SETI people have thought about this and made various calculations, but with the inverse square law and the vastness of space, maybe “needle in a haystack” is optimistic.
Is it the wrong model to think that anything but maybe a galaxy scale civilization is just going to have it’s signals more or less totally dissolved into seemingly random cosmic fluctuations, relative to our sensors/receivers at least?
Interesting thanks.
It may not be representative of a majority but it seems pretty widespread, and it is representative of a type of problem led lights are prone to, at least right now.
I’ve had issues with household LEDs that needed replacing well before expected lifespan.
What is troublesome is that many places, that many of us probably hail from, “were there” not so long ago, and it was destroyed by duplicitous, malicious political and cultural actors.
Having “safe streets” is not a pipe dream. Indeed not having them is a symptom of people trying to destroy our societies.
>If you need more light clarity, light your own phone torch or something.
Good point! In this case of nighttime lighting infrastructure it has become so vastly overbuilt as if to save people “the trouble” of these simple targeted solutions.
I’ve seen in a number of places where the led lights have rapidly degraded, putting out really unpleasant bluish, purplish hues, as if the super bright daytime like sports field lighting everywhere wasn’t already bad enough. So this rapid degradation necessitating replacement no doubt eats into some of the cost savings.
Also, “cheaper to operate” mostly seems to have turned into “pump out more photons” instead banking the savings and maintaining nighttime lighting at non eyeball scorching levels.
Last sentence is a fine idea, it is also possible to move toward developing a society where “potential attackers” is a thought much more distant in people’s minds.
Very excited
to see the headline, but the “hack” was highly underwhelming, disappointing, disconcerting.
We need to be reducing light pollution for the benefit of humans and other life forms, not just telescope machines.
The solution is less light, and more targeted, well thought out, aesthetically pleasing use of it. Warmer color temperature, shining it just where and when needed and reevaluating just how much illumination is wise and called for at night.