That’s the optimistic timeline, we still have to actually get there first.

I am sure you can come with what a pessimistic timeline would look like.

Edward Zitron is always a fun read. Looking forward to checking out this post when I get back home.

Their custom domain business can’t be big, I am assuming they merely get some referral commission from sending business to a registrar, that can’t be a lot of money.

Or am I missing something?

The irony with all these oligarch statements is that if an employee applies their economic philosophy in a direct manner, the outcome would be that the employees’ sole goal should be to work as little as possible to gain as much money as possible while not getting fired.

You want to optimize your return per hour if you are salaried. It would make logical sense that you need to lower the amount of hours worked to get the highest possible return on a per hour basis.

You would also want to focus on approaches that make it difficult to fire you as opposed to focusing on organizational goals.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with this approach, there are clearly many issues with what I am saying (other poor souls will have to pick up the slack for your laziness), just highlighting the inherent contradictions of oligarch propaganda.

Well said!

Definitely, US courts lack institutional maturity for such cases.

There are presidents with war criminals in some African countries being tried in international court system due to challenges with local courts systems.

I was refering to Kaplan specifically. Considering his background it seems a bit strange, but unfortunately very much believable. :(

Some of the most telling anecdotes in Careless People involve Kaplan, who joined Facebook’s policy team in 2011 and was promoted to Chief Global Affairs Officer earlier this year. She writes that Kaplan, who was a deputy chief of staff in the George W. Bush White House, was “surprised to learn Taiwan is an island” and that “often when we start to talk about pressing issues in some country in Latin America or Asia, he stops and asks me to explain where the country is.”

This almost seems difficult to believe, but considering the state of the world, I wouldn’t be surprised if it is true.

By now, Meta’s failures in Myanmar, where hate speech and misinformation on Facebook helped incite a genocide, are well documented. Wynn-Williams, who early in her tenure flew to Myanmar to try to sell officials there on the company’s connectivity projects, describes her futile attempts to get more resources for content moderation in the country.

She blames Kaplan in particular. She says she “started this long process of trying to hire someone for Myanmar in 2015” and found a human rights expert who fit the bill in May 2016, but Kaplan blocked her from making the hire in February of 2017. He allegedly told her to “move on and get over it.” She later concludes that “when it came to Myanmar, those people just didn’t matter to him.”

In a just world, Kaplan and Zuckerberg would be required to do mandatory multi-decade community service work as live-in junior janitors at major Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh. For example, in Bhasan Char island.

Yeah, this seems to be an example of anthropomorphication of tech that so commonly used to keep the AI grift going.

P.S. I actively use many ML solutions (local LLM, ML video upscaling), the tech clearly has potential, but that doesn’t mean I have to take a naive view of the actions of corrupt American oligarch groups (MS is a massive monopoly that has extracted untold billions from consumers with their anti-competitive behaviour).

That’s not good. Revenge / doxxing on this scale should be followed up on.

I agree with the high level socio-political commentary around sectoral bargaining and the discussion around the technical and social limitations of copyright law.

I still disagree with the notion that developing AIBlog 2000 SEO-optimized slop generator falls under fair use (in terms of principles, not necessarily legal doctrine).

Academics programmatically going through the blog contents to analyze something about how perceptions of the niche topics changed. That sounds reasonable.

Someone creating a commercial review aggregation service that scraped the blog to find reviews and even includes review snippets (with links to the source) and metadata. Sure.

Spambot 3000, where the only goal is to leverage your work to shit out tech-enabled copies for monetization does not seem like fair use or even beneficial for broader society.

Perhaps the first two examples are not possible without the third one and we have to tolerate Spambot 3000 on that basis, but that’s not the argument that was provided in this thread.

Not a legal expert, but this use case doesn’t seem very fair. Copying the content for a journalism class or for critique makes logical sense. You don’t need know anything about the details of a given legal doctrine to understand this.

This is just a tech-enabled copying device.

I strongly disagree with your analogy. Anyone can set up a blog covering the exact same niche topic; you would not have to give any kickback to anyone or ask for permission.

Am I missing something here?

Let’s say someone spends a decade plus on a small niche blog. The blog has decent readership and even modicum of commercial engagement in its niche.

Should I be allowed to openly use all the data on the blog to develop an AI powered AIBlog 2000 service that enables people to quickly and easily make SEO-optimized spam blogs (it wouldn’t be marketed that way, but that’s what it is) on a variety of topics; including the topic of the niche blog mentioned above?

Am I not giving the EFF enough benefit of the doubt? Is this more of a unique scenario that ignores the benefits of EFF’s approach?

What am I missing here?

Can’t speak for the relative merits of the bill. To be honest it doesn’t really matter, since it’s a bad idea to use any American services, be it from big tech or from startups.

However, I do have issues with the characterization of small startups leveraging “AI” in the article. Vast majority of startups add “AI powered” both as consumer marketing and a fundraising method. Even if they do actually use ML powered features, it is likely these features would simply be part of their package and marketed something along the lines of “automated recommendation for configuring [X]”. Many such features cannot even leverage public works since startups tend to focus on more niche use use cases of ML tech since it’s difficult to competing around something like LLMs.

Something about their framing of startups just sounds off.

Isn’t this not possible just for Lemmy itself? E.g. programmatically moving a community (post, comments, subs, automatic redirect etc) from one instance to another.

Good luck!

Looking forward to the webUI supporting defined thumbnails per post.

Seems like relatively minor changes. At any rate, this will only impact Pixel devices, I am sure OneUI and other skins will have their own evolutions and adaptions.

If you want to be technical, US is a proto-fascist state (i.e. there is still a lot of room for things to get worse).

The 14 Characteristics of Fascism

China’s biggest home appliances company, Midea, has launched a series of DeepSeek-enhanced air conditioners. The product is an “understanding friend” who can “catch your thoughts accurately,” according to the company’s product launch video.

This doesn’t really sound like a revolutionary use case.

Chinese media have hailed DeepSeek for saving the day in the city of Wuhan. When the police received a report that five stray horses had been wandering around at night, they asked the chatbot for information on nearby horse farms. Officials were able to locate the owner by visiting the farms DeepSeek suggested.

Maybe an LLM query ran faster than doing a search in a map tool, but by how much?

Recently, she’s been tackling a new challenge at Sunshine, her AI-driven startup focused on making everyday tasks more seamless, starting with managing users’ phone contacts and reminding them about birthdays. The company’s latest AI-powered photo sharing app reflects Mayer’s broader vision for how technology can enhance personal connections and interactions.

What a bunch of PR word salad.

I skimmed through most of the article, it reads like an oligarch propaganda piece. But in the BBC’s defense they did ask some relevant questions.

In particular, Mayer’s framing of “pessimists” and “optimists” is almost beautiful in an abstract kind of way.

It is not a matter of being pessimistic or optimistic about ML powered services, it’s a matter of not trusting a bunch of vapid, corrupt, dishonest ghouls like Mayer and her ilk.

Only a complete fool would believe the word salad about wanting to make the world a better place and leveraging technology to help develop human connections. It reads like a parody or satire.