be_excellent_to_each_other

I didn’t realize that. That’s disheartening.

It’s hard for me to imagine 2024 not being the year they do.

Someone somewhere is already planning how they will get people to work around the clock this way, and someone else somewhere is probably desperate enough to feed themselves or their family that they’ll take it when offered.

Well fuck all those artists and writers who made the original works then I guess. Licensing is impractical.

So then we as a society aren’t ready to untangle the mess of our infancy in the digital age. ChatGPT isn’t something we must have at all costs, it’s something we should have when we can deploy it while still respecting the rights of people who have made the content being used to train it.

The reinstatement came after notable users such as George Galloway, a former member of the British Parliament, called out Musk for banning the accounts.

(Update at the top of the article)

I don’t even use lemmy and that was interesting to read.

Sorry, my joke generating subroutine has not been updated since the time that the rocket scientist idiom you mention was popularized.

😁

But the idiom isn’t “it’s not AI” it’s “it’s not rocket science.” 😉😁

Maybe the smartest people in the room are the ones we least expect.

I mean, they are a bunch of rocket scientists. That’s the group everyone has expected to be the smartest people in the room for about a century. 😁

Are we allowed to say he’s gone mask off yet?

I wonder what their punishment will be. Do you suppose they’ll need to dig change out of only one sofa, or two?

You think the platform is the widget, I think the content is the widget. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

In that case I’d be selling something made by the entity giving me commission - what people want and pay for is something made by someone other than me. In this case the people creating the content are the same people drawing the subscribers, so it’s more accurate to say substack takes a cut of their subscription income than to say substack pays them.

If I stop selling widgets the company still has the exact same widgets and can get anyone else to sell them. If a renowned nazi writer (bleh) takes their content to another platform, substack no longer has that content (or the author’s presence on their platform) to profit from.

They are being paid by subscribers, not by substack. I am not on substack’s side here, but that detail seems quite relevant if we’re interested in painting an accurate picture of what’s going on.

If they were putting Nazi content on substack and no individuals were subscribing to read it, they would be earning 0.

Substack is profiting from those same subscribers, no doubt.

Imagine living in the 2020’s in the developed world and not realizing that internet access is a basic necessity.

Then imagine being the sort of person who would deny poor people basic necessities

Standard Republican Worldview

I’d almost guarantee the original TOS had a line like “we can change the TOS at any time.”

Having said that, I also thought I’d seen quite some time ago that burying undesirable restrictions in the fine print of a TOS doesn’t help companies who fuck up as much as they hope it will in court because it’s been acknowledged that so few people thoroughly read them.

IIRC they scare people into thinking they have signed away legal rights more than they actually have. I could be wrong, but that’s my recollection.

Edit: Just a quick search - https://www.rocketlawyer.com/family-and-personal/personal-finance/consumer-protection/legal-guide/your-rights-if-a-business-changes-its-terms-of-service

Consumer protection laws

Federal law and many state laws protect consumers from a wide range of deceptive, fraudulent, or unfair business practices. As mentioned earlier, businesses can enforce their TOS even if their users did not read them in their entirety, but only if the terms are reasonable and fair. Hiding unusual terms deep in the fine print of the TOS could be considered deceptive.

EEE has been used against open source tools in the past (it’s where the extend part comes in), and crushing competition with the full weight of the MS machine is kinda the point. I think you’re being too quick to handwave it away, but I’d love to be wrong. In any case, not interested in changing your mind enough to argue with you about it. Have a nice day!

“Don’t attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by stupidity.”

Extinguish isn’t about snuffing the tech out, it’s about pushing everyone else out of the market after you have extended it in a proprietary fashion and used your market dominance to create a defacto monopoly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish