It was already tough being in a world where it’s hard to see the difference between the onion articles and actual news. Now we’re on a completely new level where news can be the result of playing CAH. It’s kinda funny until you stop to think how terrible it is.

They clicked the install button of an ad, that’s the whole point, what a weird specific detail to get hung up on anyway even if you were not wrong (which you are). It’s not just an annoying ad, it’s an ad hidden as actual results of a search with an identical install button. Google is to blame for that style to clearly try and cheat people and they deserve all the backlash and fines and more for it. But clicking a button that says install without checking what it belongs to is beyond ignoring any basic security, it’s simply stupid, and that’s on the user, not on google.

Google being evil and assholes doesn’t remove the fact that this person literally didn’t spend a second to check what they clicked.

Digital safety starts with everyone, despite if we need laws to regulate the asshole companies trying to mess with people’s lack of attention.

Ah the false implication that if we don’t pay then things won’t get done. That’s a fallacy. People will always make content, they only stop if they need to work to survive and have no time. If they are paid for creating, they will create even more. If they are paid to create what they are told they won’t be able to create what they would want to.

When content is controlled and a company has the right to decide what and when and how something is created that’s when content and services get worse over time. Disney is a huge money making machine based on monopolistically controlling content, stories, characters… Disney’s services and products will only get worse no matter who pays or doesn’t, despite the love and effort put by the workers, because decisions are made based on corporate greed and maximising revenue. No one but Disney can create a marvel movie, if I would, I’d get sued into oblivion.

The only mental gymnastics are yours.

There is a ton of arguments against supporting these shitty corps milking their customers. However, there is no argument for piracy.

How do you propose to stop supporting Disney? Without eventually hurting the employees of Disney?

Streaming or buying a blueray or paying for a movie ticket (which is prohibitively expensive and can only be done in some occasions when I know I will enjoy it and then they fill you up in ads), it won’t matter, it all supports Disney and their shitty behaviour. I love buying my favourite movies and shows but I don’t want to buy all the movies and shows I want to watch, that’s why streaming is so much better in many ways and set as the main example. Even movies I bought in BR I will end up downloading for the comfort of watching them, I want to watch them on whatever screen I want wherever I want, not when I have a blue ray reader.

And others have already told you, sometimes there’s no legal way to enjoy some content, if some company doesn’t want me to get something, why would I listen to them and not find my own way?

The fact that it all works for you doesn’t mean others don’t want it in a different way.

If your kids want to watch a disney movie they spend their time enjoying it. You need to compensate whoever is providing for that. If they enjoy their time in Disneyland they also need to pay the ticket, eventhough the rides will work without them paying for the ticket.

No, I don’t need to do anything, they don’t set the rules. If my kids enjoy watching a movie but Disney won’t allow them to watch it without first swallowing 30 minutes of ads selling them other stuff you bet your own ass I will find a way to allow them to watch the movie without whatever random shit a corporation comes up with. I want to compensate the workers but I don’t. I pay Disney and they choose how employees are paid. And I won’t do whatever they say just because they “own” the movie. Should I still compensate the employees of Disney and the corporation for I don’t know, watching Fantasia done over 80 years ago? Stop sucking the corporations ass. They are abusing everyone, including their own employees.

If you say we have reasons to stop supporting Disney then you are saying either no one can watch their content or we can watch it the only way it hurts them. There’s no middle ground.

Thanks for the details! That helps to make sense of it.

the uninformed media is hyping it, the scientists in the paper were perfectly reasonable.

Unfortunately the most common problem of science reporting. And that goes to positive and negative hype.

Man you got such a weird hard on for this stance where you keep repeating the same thing over and over without actually providing a valuable argument.

So just in case you are not a bot and actually want the argument explained, here you go:

I want to watch movie A produced by Disney. As you say I have a ton of arguments to not support Disney. So I don’t pay to watch the movie. Now there’s two options left, I never watch the movie or I pirate the movie and watch it. By not watching it the only one that suffers is me, Disney couldn’t give two shits if I watch it or not. By pirating the movie I get the two things I want, to watch the movie and to not support Disney.

By pirating the movie to watch it I am not impeding anyone’s ability to watch it by paying Disney. I’m not taking anyone’s movie, no one loses anything, except Disney who loses the money they want me to pay. All those who participated in making the movie are not losing their salaries, they were already paid for the work by Disney, I’m not stealing their salaries (unless they had a contract with Disney to get some % but I can’t pay them without paying Disney)

Now let’s say I’m a parent, my kids want to watch movie A of Disney, but I don’t want to support Disney, do I punish Disney or do I punish my kids by not watching the movie? Or do I pirate the movie for my kids and still don’t support Disney’s shitty corporate behaviour?

Let’s see if you still don’t see the argument for piracy ffs

Well damn, thank you so much for the answer. That has gone well and beyond what I’d have called a great answer.

First of all I just wanted to acknowledge the time you put into it, I just read it and in order to make a meaningful answer for discussion I probably need to read your comment a couple more times, and consider my own perspective on those topics, and also study a few drops of information you gave where sincerely you lost me :D (being a neutral monist, and about Searle and such, I need to study a bit that area). So, I want to give an adequate response to you as well and I’ll need some time for that, but before anything, thanks for the conversation, I didn’t want to wait to say that later on.

Also, worth mentioning that you did hit the nail in the head when you summed up all my rambling into a coherent one question/topic. I keep debating myself about how I can support creators while also appreciating the usefulness of a tool such as LLMs that can help me create things myself that I couldn’t before. There has to be a balance somewhere there… (Fellow programmer brain here trying to solve things like if you are debugging software, no doubt the wrong perspective for such a complex context).

UBI is definitely a goal to be achieved that could help in many ways, just like a huge reform of copyright would also be necessary to remove all the predators that are already abusing creators by taking their legal rights on the content created.

The point you make of anthropomorphizing LLMs is absolutely a key point, in fact I avoid all I can mentioning AI because I believe it muddles the waters so much more than it should (but it’s a great way of selling the software). For me it goes the other way actually and I wonder how different we are from an LLM (oversimplifying much…) in the methods we apply to create something and where’s the line of being creative vs depending on previous things experienced and basing our creation in previous things.

Anyway, that starts getting a bit too philosophical, which can be fun but less practical. Respecting your other comment, I do indeed follow Doctorow, it’s fascinating how much he writes, and how clear he can expose ideas. It’s tough to catch up with him at times with so much content. I also got his books in the last humble bundle, so happy to buy books without DRM… I’ll try to think a bit more these days on these topics and see what I can come up with. I don’t want to continue rambling like a madman without setting some order to my own thoughts first. Anyway, thanks for the interesting conversation.

I would love to hear your opinion on something I keep thinking about. There’s the whole idea that these LLMs are training on “available” data all over the internet, and then anyone can use the LLM and create something that could resemble the work of someone else. Then there’s the people calling it theft (in my opinion wrong from any possible angle of consideration) and those calling it fair use (I kinda lean more on this side). But then we have the side of compensation for authors and such, which would be great if some form for it would be found. Any one person can learn about the style of an author and imitate it without really copying the same piece of art. That person cannot be sued for stealing “style”, and it feels like the LLM is basically in the same area of creating content. And authors have never been compensated for someone imitating them.

So… What would make the case of LLMs different? What are good points against it that don’t end up falling into the “stealing content” discussion? How to guarantee authors are compensated for their works? How can we guarantee that a company doesn’t order a book (or a reading with your voice in the case of voice actors, or pictures and drawings, …) and then reproduces the same content without you not having to pay you? How can we differentiate between a synthetic voice trained with thousand of voices but not the voice of person A but creates a voice similar to that of A against the case of a company “stealing” the voice of A directly? I feel there’s a lot of nuances here and don’t know what or how to cover all of it easily and most discussion I read are just “steal vs fair use” only.

Can this only end properly with a full reform of copyright? It’s not like authors are nowadays very well protected either. Publishers basically take their creation to be used and abused without the author having any say in it (like in the case of spot if unpublished a artists relationship and payment agreements).

I just wanted to say, it’s refreshing to read a well argumented comment such as this one. It’s good to see every once in a while there are still some people thinking things through without falling for automatic hatred to either side of a discussion.

But the reason the planet burns is because of how we generate the energy, not because of using energy. I’m not defending all these fucked up greedy corporations and their use of AI, machine learning, LLMs or whatever crap they are trying to get us to use want or not, but our real problem is based on energy generation, not consumption.

But then the problem is how google uses AI, not AI itself. I can have an LLM running locally not consuming crazy amounts of energy for my own purposes.

So blaming AI is absurd, we should blame OpenAI, Google, Amazon… This whole hatred for AI is absurd when it’s not the real source of the problem. We should concentrate on blaming and ideally punishing companies for this kind of use (abuse more like) of energy. Energy usage also is not an issue in itself, as long as we use adequate energy sources. If companies start deploying huge solar panel fields on top of their buildings and parkings and whatnot to cover part of the energy use we could all end up better than before even.

I like the idea of the keyboard being offline and the LLM stuff but so far I can’t see a way for multi language input. I’m guessing it’s too early in the alpha state for that but I will keep an eye open for it, it is a promising project. In the meantime I’ll test the heliboard others were mentioning.

Who are you and how did you read my diary?

Yeah he worked in Microsoft before that and when he ended in Nokia the path was quite clear what it would be. But I’ve had the chance to talk with many engineers that were working at Nokia back in the day and the problems didn’t start because of Microsoft.

Basically Nokia had the whole management divided between symbian, maemo, and windows mobile, and as they couldn’t agree on a future path all the efforts were divided. Symbian was quite a disaster at the end and it wouldn’t have gone far most likely, those that wanted to continue with it didn’t have a clear view of the changes coming in the mobile world.

Maemo was great, really advanced, based on Linux, and working really well, maybe too advanced even, specially for your common users back then. The whole system was constantly put down and delayed and the first devices sold wouldn’t even work as a phone, only the 4th ended up with mobile connection, which didn’t help at all to make it useful (wifi was not as big as it is now) and sold.

Finally there was Windows Mobile which was still starting basically then and had far less strength, but with the support of Microsoft behind it it was easier to push it out. I don’t understand why it still has such support when it comes to the UI, I personally never liked it and it felt too simplistic and boring, but the more options the better I guess. Of course once Microsoft managed to plant his own guy inside Nokia they managed to favor the balance towards Win mobile and the other two were left behind more and more.

So Microsoft was a key part in what ended happening but they were not the ones that put Nokia in trouble. That was a lack of direction in the management level.

Maemo was so much better than any os coming after it… Meego was in my opinion the wrong path to take. I still miss the N900, what an amazing device it was…