I may not like it, but you do make an interesting technical argument.

I think it would still be detectable though because of buffering.

What you’re saying assumes that videos are streamed frame-by-frame: “here’s a frame”, “okay, I watched that frame”, “okay, here’s the next frame”.

With buffering videos will preload the next 30 seconds of video, and so if you pressed a button to skip ahead 10 seconds, that often happens instantly because the computer has already stored the next 30 seconds of video. Your plan to just pretend to skip ahead doesn’t work in this case, because my computer can know whether or not it really did skip ahead, because of buffering.

I agree. Price is important in a classic “free market” where people compete to sell goods and services for cheaper and whoever does it best makes a profit and grows, etc, etc.

This ain’t a classic free market. We frequently see companies become market leaders without ever earning a profit. That’s not a classic free market.

Succeeding as a company because you make customers happy sounds nice, but the most powerful companies today succeed by gaining favor from those already in power (venture capitalists, etc), and the customers are just a bargaining chip to be tossed around on the bargaining tables of the wealthy.

Ads will always be detectable because you cannot speed up or skip an ad like you can the rest of the video.

If they do make it so you can speed up or skip the ad sections of a video, mission accomplished.

If all else fails, I’d enjoy a plugin that just blanks the video and mutes the sound whenever an ad is playing. I’ll enjoy the few seconds of quiet, and hopefully I can use that time to break out of the mentally unhealthy doom spiral that is the typical YouTube experience.

Whenever I get some lint in my Android phone I just use my 100,000 PSI water cutter to spray a little water in there and it cleans the lint right out.

My Grandma uses Arch by the way

If ByteDance is a normal company they will seek profits and sell for as much as they can.

But if TikTok is a Chinese psyop, they’ll just use any of the many legal tricks we allow to change the “owner” while China still retains control. Companies do this all the time, look at shell companies and such. It’s super easy for China to mask the true owner if they decide to.

This is why we should make broadly applicable regulations instead of picking on one specific company.

Most US adults never aspire to create anything and thus a tool that is useful for creating is of no use to them.

You’d kill for it, yes, but would you update your resume for it? When was the last time you sent out your resume?

Schedule meetings with them and then don’t show.

I’ve come up with the following rules for my own relationship with Reddit.

1. I will avoid posting on Reddit.
2. If I do post on Reddit, I must make a similar post on another forum, maybe Lemmy, maybe somewhere else.

Number 2 is important because it helps other small communities grow.

It’s not a problem if a lot of people post on one forum, but it is a problem if a lot of people post only on one forum. I wont allow myself to post only on Reddit.

That said, I haven’t posted on Reddit since June.

This reminds me of the reports I’ve heard about numerous tesla owners being trapped inside their EVs after they lost power.

I work in tech and have enjoyed good salaries, I wish everyone was so fortunate.

As for myself, it would actually be a huge relief to know that there are many career options for me that paid just as well, because sometimes I really want to do something else. If wages had grown fairly, then a lot more people would be making 100,000+.

deleted by creator

Serious question: Is admitting that you did something illegal in a conversation enough to be convicted of a crime? For example, if I say “I bought a small amount of weed from another kid at school and smoked it last year”, is my statement alone enough to convict me of a crime? To clarify, they don’t know a date, they don’t know a place, they don’t know who I bought it from, they don’t know how much I bought, or how much I smoked. They really don’t even know if it actually happened (sometimes people say things happened that didn’t actually happen, gasp).

My first reaction to this comment was “yeah, but the quality of the paper has nothing to do with whether or not it is true”.

On second thought, I’m not sure about that. I mean, a low quality paper isn’t a good signal, but on the other hand, the presentation of an argument doesn’t change whether or not it’s true.

At least we know there are other labs trying to replicate, we already have rumors of some replications.

Indeed, there seems to be some confusion about the wording too. She wrote instructions, like she was instructing a state-of-the-art LLM, “please alter this photo to make it look professional”, but the AI can’t understand sentence structure or instructions, it just looks for labels that match pictures. So the AI sees “photo, professional” and it sees her starting photo, and it alters the starting photo to produce something that resembles “photo, professional”. It doesn’t know what those other words mean.

Inventing the universe is only a small part of it, you have to get regulatory permission first!

(Joking aside, I support regulated nuclear power plants.)

This is tough. I believe there is a lot of unfair wealth concentration in our society, especially in the tech companies. On the other hand, I don’t want AI to be stifled by bad laws.

If we try to stop AI, it will only take it away from the public. The military will still secretly use it, companies might still secretly use it. Other countries will use it and their populations will benefit while we languish.

Our only hope for a happy ending is to let this technology be free and let it go into the hands of many companies and many individuals (there are already decent models you can run on your own computer).

I heard that Twitter originally added verification because they were getting sued over imposters, so they added verification to delegitimize imposters and thus give less reason for others to sue them.

Now Musk is getting rid of verification en masse, so the original reason for the lawsuits will return.

Here’s how to play it if you’re a business who loses your Twitter verification:

1. Allow yourself to lose verification.
2. Make a backroom deal with some random person, have that person make a fake account for your business and buy verification. Have the person post some bad things under their fake and verified account.
3. Sue Twitter since they have verified the fake account and removed verification of the real account, and are thus committing libel.