> Can anyone explain to me why Tristan simply didn't go to settings page and turn off the thing?
Maybe they were fine with contributing training data when their threat model didn't include the case of "OpenAI gets wind of our research and attempts to front-run us"?
There's something that really rubs me the wrong way when people use the language of healthy emotional regulation to spread unearned and unjustified placation.
It reminds me of (for the pedants out there, I'm not saying it's equivalent to) the consume product meme. "Don't ask questions, just complete assignment and then get excited for next industry trend."
>I don’t know what the future of this industry will look like, and I don’t know who will benefit from it and I don’t think I’m alone with that. However I can only urge anyone who feels anger and looks for a villain right to instead remain curious instead. To be curious enough to understand what is changing, excited enough to experiment with it. And then, from what we learn, earn the right to decide when resistance is warranted and where to direct it.
Sounds pleasant and vaguely inspirational. Then you read it again and notice guy thinks I don't always have the RIGHT to DECIDE to RESIST.
> Sounds pleasant and vaguely inspirational. Then you read it again and notice guy thinks I don't always have the RIGHT to DECIDE to RESIST.
Author here: maybe I wasn't too clear about this, but I have seen people direct their anger about about what AI does to their jobs at people who themselves are not in a situation to do anything about it (eg: line managers or leaderships in businesses who are trying to roll out AI based coding tools).
I think it's what is missing in the article. Anger incorrectly directed is a bad thing. But the article implies that there is no correct direction to the anger, which makes the article sounds as naive and misdirected as people who get angry at the wrong persons.
I would even say that being angry at the wrong person is as bad as not being angry at the right person.
Being angry is a societal tool to put limits on what can or cannot be done. If there is no anger when people crosses the line, then there is no real signal for them to not cross the line. And, no, "a peaceful rational argument" is not an alternative. This is not at all the same signal, this is a signal that is sent way earlier before that specific line and it is exactly how the overton window shifts.
> I guess introducing money is taboo for those communities
Sourcehut is a subscription service with multiple tiers of access.
I think the different tiers are just for show, but I could imagine that if they felt there was a subset of projects they liked that were putting extra stress on their system they wouldn't be above differentiation at that point.
I thought sourcehut was general purpose git hosting, not open source mission focused like codeberg?
obv they're going to have content restriction, but there is a spectrum from "actually illegal" to "wonderful chaps whom I love but happen to disagree with philosophically." Slop coding is neither of those, but is closer to the latter than I'd expect a general purpose host to draw a line.
It’s general purpose except for what the BDFL (Drew) takes a dislike to, with a veneer of consulting the community. Sourcehut is a rare case of a BDFL-led project making horrible missteps.
The Drew from the Wayland/Sway era is not the same person he once was. It’s sad to see the lost potential here. I used to defend him, even after his attacks on RMS, but I won’t be moving forward.
Slop is slop but people have a right to churn out slop if they want it. Paid users should be allowed to experiment if they aren’t exceeding limits. (IMHO slop will soon be a self-correcting problem, we’re already seeing normie slop fatigue.)
I don’t want my source forge banning anything that isn’t blatantly illegal or abusing resources, because there’s no guarantee that I won’t be next on the chopping block.
Hard disagree. Plenty of new technologies have readily apparent straight-forward application for government use.
You're arguing your point by naming a technology that speculative fiction regularly foresees advancements in, and loves using in stories as the enabler of more intrusive state power.
More surveillance records, better processing and recall of those records are like THE THING when it comes to more law enforcement and passive coercion by the state.
There is honest to goodness disruptive tech that takes time for society to adapt to and reveal where state power wants to go. But those are the vast minority. I think it's a pasttime of industry to play ignorant to how their products will interplay with the government's obvious motivations.
> but dear God would it be satisfying to watch him be proven right on the financials.
I don't get why there are so many people who need Zitron to be wrong. It reminds me of back in the days when people still liked Elon and every criticism of him or Tesla must be a short-seller spreading lies to move the price.
I think it's pretty easy to slot Ed's predictions into your possibility space even if you're still betting on a different outcome being more likley. Something else is going on.
Why does everyone play the game where everything ought to be assumed above-board until someone painstakingly proves otherwise.
> To date, five manufacturers have pleaded guilty to their involvement in an international price-fixing conspiracy between July 1, 1998, and June 15, 2002, including Hynix, Infineon, Micron Technology, Samsung, and Elpida.
We are not the courts. The most reasonable and truth based position is operating with a fuzzy impression that most businesses are substantially more dodgy than their carefully manufactured PR releases are meant to portray themselves as.
And in this case, that includes acknowledging that a literal criminal conspiracy in well within the realm of possibility.
The reason for the price increase isn't hard to figure out. The AI boom is here and the demand is off the charts. Supply is limited and increasing production is difficult and slow.
> Why does everyone play the game where everything ought to be assumed above-board until someone painstakingly proves otherwise.
Because conspiracies are generally not true and it's not needed to explain this situation.
>So why not rate limit non-paying users and charge for whatever scarce resource is being consumed that is causing them to constantly fall-over?
I think it behooves them for the public presentation of their issues to too much load. If they implemented load shedding and still had issues the follow-up questions would be less comfortable.
old.reddit.com is remnants of a product they're trying to distance themselves from. People who like it are not the target market. It's not that they want you to go away, they'd much rather you be a scroll zombie addicted to the tripe on the front page. But if that's not an option they'd rather you fuck off. All the thoughtful subreddits I used to visit are ghost towns now, with 1-4 posts a month.
they did ban a ton of people in large purges last year, they lost all those users that couldve generated content and now its filled with bots/Ai posts.
>or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over
Looks like Amodi is laying the groundwork so he can re-run Eric Schmidt's "but it happened" playbook. Do whatever you can to make money, wait for the dust to settle and walk off into the sunset after one final "whoopie daisy, didn't mean to do that to you. sucks to suck."
Maybe they were fine with contributing training data when their threat model didn't include the case of "OpenAI gets wind of our research and attempts to front-run us"?
reply