Peanutbjelly

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Antitrust was just a nice idea. It's kinda dead. Will remain dead unless we can purge corruption from politics. For some reason, most politicians seem averse to this idea.

Luckily the party driven and heavily influential political roles are filled with diverse representatives from every walk of life and aren't largely built around the same support circles and ideals that have already been entrenched for generations. With millions of citizens, its normal for the same handful of families to remain in power, with the exception of some rich celebrities who can win the popularity polls.

Everything is fine.

As long as the rich can get more money. That's what is most important.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I conflate these things because they come from the same intentional source. I associate the copywrite chasing lawyers with the brands that own them, it is just a more generalized example.

Also an intern who can give you a songs lyrics are trained on that data. Any effectively advanced future system is largely the same, unless it is just accessing a database or index, like web searching.

Copyright itself is already a terrible mess that largely serves brands who can afford lawyers to harass or contest infringements. Especially apparent after companies like Disney have all but murdered the public domain as a concept. See the mickey mouse protection act, as well as other related legislation.

This snowballs into an economy where the Disney company, and similarly benefited brands can hold on to ancient copyrights, and use their standing value to own and control the development and markets of new intellectual properties.

Now, a neuralnet trained on copywritten material can reference that memory, at least as accurately as an intern pulling from memory, unless they are accessing a database to pull the information. To me, sueing on that bases ultimately follows the logic that would dictate we have copywritten material removed from our own stochastic memory, as we have now ensured high dimensional informational storage is a form of copywrite infringement if anyone instigated the effort to draw on that information.

Ultimately, I believe our current system of copywrite is entirely incompatible with future technologies, and could lead to some scary arguments and actions from the overbearing oligarchy. To argue in favour of these actions is to argue never to let artificial intelligence learn as humans do. Given our need for this technology to survive the near future as a species, or at least minimize the excessive human suffering, I think the ultimate cost of pandering to these companies may be indescribably horrid.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 year ago (27 children)

Music publishers sue happy in the face of any new technological development? You don't say.

If an intern gives you some song lyrics on demand, do they sue the parents?

Do we develop all future A.I. Technology only when it can completely eschew copyrighted material from their comprehension?

"I am sorry, I'm not allowed to refer to the brand name you are brandishing. Please buy our brand allowance package #35 for any action or communication regarding this brand content. "

I dream of a future when we think of the benefit of humanity over the maintenance of our owners' authoritarian control.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People like to push the negative human qualities onto theoretical future A.I.

There's no reason to assume that it will be unreasonably selfish, egotistical, impatient, or anything else you expect from most humans.

Rather, if it is more intelligent than humans from most perspectives, it will likely be able to understand more levels of nuance in interactions where humans fall back on monkeybrain heuristics that are damaging at every level.

There's also the paradox that keeps the most ethically qualified people away from positions of power, as they have no desire to dominate and demand or control others.

I absolutely agree with you.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

In the form of Amazon exclusive currency*

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

I loved the CV1 oculus. The moment Facebook integration started happening I noped the fuck out of there. Also can't stand overly proprietary environments. Acquiescence to researchers like yann lecun would be the only reason I don't absolutely detest meta at this point.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I'm no fan of meta, but a reminder that they are one of the best right now for keeping their AI developments more open and available. This is thanks to yann lecun and other researchers pressuring meta to keep their info on the subject more open.

Are we looking to punish them for making their work accessible?

Not to mention how important something like joint embedded predictive architecture could be for the future of alignment and real world training/learning. Maybe go after other foundation model developers to be more open, if we're complaining about the inevitably public nature of some information within the mountainous datasets being used.

Although I'm still of the mindset that the model intent matters more than the use of openly available data in training. I.E. I've been shouting about models being used specifically to predict and manipulate user interactions/habits for the better part of a decade. For your "customized advertisements" and the like.

The general public and media interaction on the topic this past year has been insufferably out of touch.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

... Basically the day it was created.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you also equate French nobility with nazi victims?

Nobody is being called out for their race or sexual preferences or body they were given at birth. The people being targeted here are defined only as the ones who have plundered the world to fill their pockets regardless of the cost. It is the very act of power hungry and despotic rule that leads to this call. Remember that every family member and friend we lose to the meat grinder could have lived happily if not for the ones who deem us unworthy of human treatment. Every home burnt to the ground as the fires worsen, because they refuse to let environmental care affect their overflowing coffers.

How many more people should die and suffer for their wont?

This is not a comparable situation, you silly person.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

So a platform that more heavily favours and incentivizes the information preferred and supported by those with expendable money.

Can we eat the rich yet?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Can we talk more about deceptive patterns? I had my computer go down recently, and I was reminded just how bad mobile is.

Pick a game at random and I'll show you a dozen direct and intentional manipulations to get you into the habit and environment they want you to be in for optimal resource extraction. I miss when games were an artform rather than a human habit adjusting set of professionally designed manipulations that can annoy you into the right mindset to give money. Not to mention the advertisements which range from absolute fabrication to actual scam.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I swear the actual gain from prime is virtually indecipherable. The less you understand it, the less you can actually complain about what you are paying for.

It also does not boost my confidence when they use deceptive patterns to sneak you back into prime, or keep you from leaving.

The average person doesn't give a hoot though, and will get actively upset at you for pointing out deceptive patterns when it's a brand they use, so I we can probably expect things to get worse whenever physically possible.

view more: ‹ prev next ›