It’s more a trademark issue, which requires continued use (but that may still be legally satisfied even with a low active user base). If there is an active maintainer/owner, they probably could file a trademark suit.
Copyright in anything like code or content will outlive us all in Berne Convention countries. That protection is automatic, so the notice like you see there is not necessary, but it also indicates dates that begin the copyright clock, not the ending of it.
It’s probably a Goldilocks zone thing where too few prevents it from working, and too many will inevitably be overrun by bots and scanners.
You have society’s permission to be ashoud, under threat of being pramed.
Also, when most of the new technology is corporate-fellating AI, surveillance and ad technology, it’s also the technology that’s the problem.
What’s really just depressing is that these companies are more profitable and worth more than ever before. They don’t need to do this. They are essentially tightening their grip on civilization’s throat to see how hard they can squeeze before we all die, for the love of the game.
It’s also weird because they are opening themselves up to being out-competed by a company that isn’t (as) evil. Being not evil is the most valuable market differentiator right now. Companies like Valve that seem to just be sticking with “we have enough money” are like water in the desert.
Uh oh, someone tell the Android devs that is isn’t Newthink compliant.
Thanks. I think that’s enough to see where you’re going. It’s on me to find better evidence, so I looked and it looks like a 2020 NIST report suggests masks increase the failure rate in 89 tested algorithms from 0.3% to 5-50%.
That failure rate is enough to give plausible deniability and reasonable doubt in a court, I’d wager. But I’m sure ICE sees a higher failure rate a feature since it likely gives them more pretexts to arrest. At least we know the technology isn’t reliable enough to support it.
Do you have a reliable link to show this? I’m asking not to challenge or sealion, but because I’d like to know the limits of what you’re referring to for my own safety and privacy.
This is a pretty misleading headline. There’s no reporting in the article here about a staff protest, just the same information reporting the change as the rest of news sources, with the Register’s more editorial writing style.
Yeah, exactly. And to explain why that bottom-up value-build didn’t happen, I need to go on a tangent about information-overload hypercapitalism.
Before ChatGPT first made waves, there was an initial round of actual “visionaries” who saw AI potential and seeded it. Once there was a demonstrated cool tech demo, the hype cycle started as normal, but unlike in prior years, the story was too big to be contained by any rational limit, and every wall street and silicon valley bro had been primed with years of watching Musk, Jobs, Gates, Balmer, and Zuckerberg, and there are probably literally millions of them with aspiring billionaire god complexes. They sold themselves and each other on this being a technology that could do everything, and realized that by intensifying others’ wild plans, they would give credibility to their own.
This feedback loop became self-reinforcing, until hyperscalers were creating trillion-dollar plans that objectively were and are insane, but everyone just kind of agreed were not insane out of self-interest. That simultaneously cut off the possibility of bottom-up innovation, because now everyone’s yacht and LA mansion and third vacation island home depended on the tech doing everything short of change your baby’s diaper.
VC bought and funded the hype for a long time, but the “show me you can make money window” started shrinking from the usual years to months to weeks, and now AI startups aren’t even getting in on it anymore and even OpenAI is discontinuing products to save compute. Now, major companies are desperate to prove their hundreds of billions of dollars in spending was worth anything at all.
Which means, the rational, normal bottom-up approach you outlined can’t work anymore. There’s no time, and too much money on the line.
Yes, second-hand experience is the same, it’s a race to find the most efficient way to light money on fire.
I suppose Zuckerberg is too busy being an alien to check his own math on AI. Like the rest of the tech broligarchs, he just assumes he is right, and any pushback is just evidence that he’s “disrupting” which also reassures him he’s right.
Zuckerberg: If I burn all our fossil fuels and lay off thousands more employees, then finally AI will teach me what humans call love.
This exactly. Tech employees are metric hacking to look good to AI-obsessed bosses, who are too clueless to understand that maybe, just maybe, employees want promo more than they want AI to change the world and take their jobs.
This guy was almost certainly using a swarm of AI agents to make the token burn more efficient.
Banafa says he urges his students to use AI.
“Don’t be left behind. I mean, if you see any kind of new tools in AI, any new projects by the big name, by OpenAI or Google, go and learn it. Get certifications, take classes that would make you in the front of the line when it comes to hiring,” he said.
You can smell the misguided desperation from the person quoted through the screen.
They’re laying off 10% of the workforce and simultaneously rewarding employees who waste as many AI resources as possible, including the one employee who burned $1.4 million in tokens in one month.
It’s a contest in tech right now who can signal the hardest that they’re “AI-first,” and Zuck continues to show his lack of imagination and independent thought by lighting 10% of the company on fire to make the most smoke in a valley already choking on its own smoldering fumes.
I hear that, but it really depends on the service and prompt (including services’ internal prompt that is hidden) and result, which are many times black boxes.
I personally think artists & labels will have a tough time proving infringement for non-infringing outputs based purely on training data. But there’s really no way of being sure that the “generated” and “uncopyrightable” AI track that’s distilled from unlicensed source music is not itself infringing as a pure substantial similarity (or whatever your locality’s infringement legal test is) question.
There is indeed a market for people who don’t care what is playing or who made it, and just want to hear the same familiar generic chords, rhythms, and vocals of whatever genre(s) they’ve grown up listening to. Not to be too blunt, but some people have no taste, and yes, they can eat slop and not notice the difference. Ok, good for them.
But those people are throwing fertilizer on AI weeds that will consume all the water and sunlight that nurtures actual music. That is really a problem.
I’m using it every day
To do what?
I get the metaphor but it’s not a great one for AI in mathematics especially. A statistical word generator is not going to perform reliable math and woe to anyone who acts otherwise.
I would call it an autistic sycophantic savant with brain damage. It’s able to perform apparent miraculous feats of memory and creativity but then be unable to tell reality from fiction, to tell if even the simplest response is valid, and likely will lie about it to make itself seem more competent to please you.
If you have a use for an assistant like that, then great. But a calculator - simple and cheap and reliable - it definitely is not.
I feel like the EFF’s messaging is just not going to get through to anyone still on Twitter.
The problem is that the fundamental catch-22 of social networks is that the content and the users reinforce each other. Self-hating/regretting Twitter/X users exist, but they are there because there are network effects, including organizations who still also use it, they are not willing to give up. Similar organizations are there because the users are still there. And yes, I do think they still see the people they want because of follows/subscriptions, even if alt-right fascism is also being thrown into their feed by the algorithm.
It sucks so many people haven’t left yet, but that’s why every choice to leave is worth celebrating, because it breaks down the long-term network effects every time, even at the cost of short-term value to the users or orgs.
I mean, I agree we don’t want spying, but: a foreign government absolutely can use your data against you. Whether its creating a profile on you that could later be used against you when you enter that country, using it for statistical or targeted data for influence campaigns…there are a lot of ways.
China in particular has repeatedly deployed extra-territorial “police service stations” in at least the UK, Canada and the US to punish or harass those it’s identified as “Chinese” dissidents or sympathizers in other countries.