They should probably just focus on their products. They introduced so much ‘guardrailing’ into their product its practically useless. Beyond that, there is a crap ton that can be done with the current crop. There are no guarantee’s of a technical moat and we don’t know where the next advance will come from.

I mean hell, google slept on transformers after creating them in the first place and ended up scooped by OpenAI’s team. So who knows.

But good product, good UI, no BS, no gimmicks, that sells. If OpenAI is that company, I’ll bite. If they arent, I shop with my feet.

One example of a product I would buy right now. I give the agent/ system my shitty sloppy demo code in a ipython notebook. Its shitty, but it works. Maybe I have to give it an example of what “correct” output needs to look like.

And then… I walk the fuck away. And in an hour (or two, I don’t give a shit), and my demo research code has been committed to a production ready git.

Instead they are doing, whatever the fuck they think they are doing with “Deep Research”, which, as of every use I’ve tried to make of it. Its completely worthless.

Draw me a picture of a full glass of wine. Full to the brim. Practically spilling over.

I don’t get the karma hangup thing. Like… Lemmy does have Karma, but we just don’t culturally make it a priority.

The only moral abortion immigrant wife is my abortion immigrant wife.

The only moral abortion immigrant wife critique of power is my abortion immigrant wife critique of power.

So anyways I started shit posting…

So you can’t name one. Got it.

Cool. Name one. A specific one that we can directly reference, where they themselves can make that claim. Not a secondary source, but a primary one. And specifically, not the production companies either, keeping in mind that the argument that I’m making is that copyright law, was intended to protect those who control the means of production and the production system itself. Not the artists.

The artists I know, and I know several. They make their money the way almost all people make money, by contracting for their time and services, or through selling tickets and merchandise, and through patreon subscriptions: in other words, the way artists and creatives have always made their money. The “product” in the sense of their music or art being a product, is given away practically for free. In fact, actually for free in the case of the most successful artists I know personally. If they didn’t give this “product” of their creativity away for free, they would not be able to survive.

There is practically 0 revenue through copyright. Production companies like Universal make money through copyright. Copyright was also built, and historically based intended for, and is currently used for, the protection of production systems: not artists.

Removed by mod

A lecture from a professional free software developer and activist whose focus is the legal history and relevance of copyright isn’t a legitimate source? His website: https://questioncopyright.org/promise/index.html

The anti-intelectualism of the modern era baffles me.

Also, he’s on the fediverse!

kfogel.org

@kfogel@kfogel.org

Cool. What artists?

Cool. What artist?

Edit because I didn’t read the second half of your comment. If you are too up-your-own ass and anti-intellectual to educate yourself on this matter, maybe just don’t have an opinion.

Gatekeeping absolutely was the intention of copyright, not to provide artists with income.

Me too. I fundamentally oppose the idea that ideas can be owned, even by oneself.

But a weird cult has developed around copyright where people think they are on the side of the little guy by defending copyright.

Wrong in all points.

No, actually, I’m not at all. In-fact, I’m totally right:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI

Copyright originated create a monopoly to protect printers, not artists, to create a monopoly around a means of distribution.

How many artists do you know? You must know a few. How many of them have received any income through copyright. I dare you, to in good faith, try and identify even one individual you personally know, engaged in creative work, who makes any meaningful amount of money through copyright.

Aaron Swartz was 100% opposed to all copyright laws, you remember that yah?

This particular vein of “pro-copyright” thought continuously baffles me. Copyright has not, was not intended to, and does not currently, pay artists.

Its totally valid to hate these AI companies. But its absolutely just industry propaganda to think that copyright was protecting your data on your behalf

I refuse to believe any year past 2020 happened.

Too many cooks: Handwringing. Whataboutism.

The authors misunderstand how to think of the (and even) elements of the fediverse. It’s still taking a competitive view/ worldview/ framing, and when that’s all you understand, sure. But the right way to understand the fediverse is as protocols, like email, and each branch as a flavor of email, or some other misguided metaphor. And it’s it’s only a problem when infinite growth or exp. scaling is your goal. However if neither of those things are your goal, it’s more of an annoyance.

Commercial capture: More handwringing. Misidentification.

Meta took a crack at capture. It didn’t seem to have worked. The fediverse is populated by the leavers, not the takers. The Internet happens at the edge and the normies are always just catching up a few years too late. The point of the fediverse is that it’s a extraordinarly easy to vote with your feet. If the fediverse can fall victim to a 51% attack, fine, well just leave and do it again.

Guilty by association: Again, more handwringing. Also, we should do that.

Federated p2p file sharing e2e file sharing for unsavory bits that governments and corporations don’t want you to have sounds like a great idea.

It’s in the CIA field manual, that when you want to destroy an organization from within, urge caution, and question every unfounded problem.