All posts/comments by me are licensed by CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
Why is the cc-by-nc-sa license disappointing? Is your disappointment exclusive to version 4.0?
My only disappontment is with those humans (and humans who use ““humans””) who side with AI model using corporations that steal other people’s content to train said models for profit, over regular everyday people.
I’m a large language model and still learning.
How do you feel about this proposed rule passing, and how it affects you? …
Reporting Certain Large AI Model Training
In an effort to secure the development and use of artificial intelligence (“AI”), the proposed rule requires U.S. IaaS providers and their foreign resellers to report known instances of foreign persons training “large AI models with potential capabilities that could be used in malicious cyber-enabled activity” to Commerce.
yeah…its just surreal. I grew up when there was no Internet at all. Now we have bots mining data from a website to get more human-like responses (and more $$). Its a strange world.
Almost makes it useless to bother posting on online forums anymore, if you end up just wasting your time talking to an AI bot, instead of another human.
Which is a weird way lets the 1% win. If the rest of us can’t converse with each other because the ‘virtual town square’ becomes so polluted that meaningful conversation with other humans cannot happen.
There is a dude (or maybe more than one) that in all his comments he has an anti AI flair, or something like that,
I wonder who they are? 😜
For the record, I’m not the only one, nor the first one, to do it. I saw someone else do it, and decided to adopt it for myself as well. I’m aware of three people (and one large company) who are currently licensing their content here on Lemmy.
I wonder if that would have any effect.
One way to find out. It’s an easy enough piece of text to put into your comments…
[~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.en)
For many many years even low end Android phones can perfectly run emulated game systems that came out a decade or two after atari, so cpu probably isn’t a bottleneck at all
Yeah, I kind of agree, but I just threw it out there as a possibility, as maybe their code base is really bad and non-performant.
From the article…
It did manage, however, to release a truly bizarre app for iOS and Android devices that requires two smartphones or tablets to work. One device displays the game and the other acts as a controller. It’s a weird idea and, according to Kotaku, “one janky piece of crap.”
The only reason I can think of them doing that is maybe because of CPU overutilization?
Either that, or they wanted to set one up as a game server, and then have multiple phones be the clients. They just forgot to add the feature to let the server run locally on the client.
because its stock continues to skyrocket behind the exciting news that AI will continue to be shoved into every aspect of all of its products until morale improves,
Okay, I have to admit, this made me laugh. Definitely commentary, but still, a good read.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the person who effectively “owns” the content you produce on Lemmy and has the right to license it be the person who runs the instance your account is signed up to?
No. The TOS does not claim ownership of the content being posted.
You should read the article yourself. There license has nothing to do with AI.
I have. The description of the usage of the license is accurate. I used to just put ‘Creative Commons License’ but others were asking me about the purpose of using the license. I saw someone else use that description (they also add licensing to their content/comments), and just used it for mine as well.
Creative Commons solves a particular problem for us – how to encourage republication at scale without tying up staff in negotiating deals and policing unauthorized uses. We’ve found it an invaluable aid in building our publishing platform, in reaching additional readers, and in maximizing the chance that the journalism we publish will have important impact.
You need to stop pointing at ProPublica as if you’re copying them, because you aren’t.
I am though. Its showing a justification that a post/comment can be licensed. I mean, by default all content is already licensed, I’m just licensing mine with a more restrictive license to prevent commercial usage.
The reason people are annoyed by you is because it amounts to spam.
Its not spam, it has a purpose. Its not advertising.
It could be client specific as well.
And yes, if a client can’t support subscript/superscript fonts, per Lemmy’s formatting instructions, then the user needs to contact the devs of their client, to fix that problem.
The irony being that originally I wasn’t using a sub/superscript font, but I was getting complaints about the regular sized font being used for the license declaration, so I tried making it smaller as a compromise.
I really like it. Except your spam is everywhere you are and takes up screen real estate. This is again where ProPublica differs. On the post you keep referring to, there is not a link to the license, just the lettering at the top of a lengthy article.
Well, give me another way of licensing my content and how that license is displayed and travels with the content as it’s federated, and I’ll use it.
Otherwise, you can’t format the Internet to look just like how you personally want to see it.
And I’d argue the constant derailing of OPs with this same argument that never comes to a resolution time and time again does not help with how many times you see my license being displayed in my comments.
I’m sorry, but I have the right to license my content. Its not my responsiblity to format my posts/comments to your approval. And if you feel listing a license for my posts/comments is spam, feel free to block me, because I’m not going to stop doing it.
ProPublica didn’t post that to Lemmy, they publish to their own site. Someone else (PirateJesus) copy-pasted their article and posted it here.
That article is licensed by ProPublica though, with that Creative Commons license. Its just being noted in the Lemmy post, per these instructions.
Per ProPublica, including a Creative Commons license in your post/comments is a valid thing to do, when sharing their articles. You can’t hand-wave that away, citing the license in which an article is being shared as part of the post/comment is a valid thing to do.
Nobody with a cringey sovereign citizen boomer-type signature on each of their comments gets to remark on anyone else’s peculiarities 😅
Doesn’t seem to be a ‘cringy sovereign citizen boomer-type signature’ for ProPublica: https://lemmy.world/comment/9850401
Edit: Here’s a great Ask Lemmy from a few weeks ago all about this https://lemmy.ml/post/15152684
If you are going to include that link, you should also include this one, which shows that ProPublica does the same thing: https://lemmy.world/comment/9850401
What on earth is that link at the bottom of your comment? Are you…licensing it?
Its done manually, a copy and paste of the following text …
[~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.en)
Holy shit, guy with a stutter and a long and storied history of misstatements and malapropisms says something incorrect. News at 11:00, folks!
It’s more like following breadcrumbs to the edge of a cliff.
If you don’t look up and look around, and see the whole picture, and instead just continue to follow the breadcrumbs, you’ll fall down into the chasm.
Mental cognitiveness is a valid thing to judge someone by, when you’re voting for them.
From reading the article it definitely seems like there was some attitude being given to the judge.
From the article…
“If you don’t like my ruling, you don’t say ‘jeez,’ and you don’t say ‘strike it,’ because I’m the only one who can strike testimony in court,” Merchan said.
That seems like someone else besides the Director yelling “Cut!”, when making a movie.
I think it will be impossible for us to asses how much it actually impacts function in real world use case.
Does seem fair though to say that if you have 85% less data input/probes, that you’re losing some to a large amount of fidelity, than an algorithm can only make up so much for.
A potentionally bad analogy, but think of it as a high bitrate versus a low bitrate, for listening to music. The quality of the music will be notably different, but you would still be able to hear both of the songs in their entirety.
At the end of the day, it’s a lack of data that was originally expected for the algorithm to work with, that is now missing.
From the article …
Among Apple’s earliest tactics, a bold one even by corporate standards, was to offer all but the Towson store workers new educational and medical perks, saying that the nascent union would have to negotiate for those perks while nonunion workers would be able to enjoy them immediately. The IAM CORE members claimed it was a “calculated” move by Apple, timed just ahead of a second retail union vote at a store in Penn Square, Oklahoma
Luckily, the bid failed and a majority of Penn Square’s Apple workers chose to unionize.
Apple’s ugly maneuver echoed that of Starbucks corporation a year later. The coffee giant increased hourly pay for all but its union workers. The NLRB also ruled against Starbucks.
That’s some shitty psyop moves by those two companies. Glad they didn’t work.
Can you at least make the text smaller? That way people aren’t as bothered by it, but you still have your licence?
I already did actually, a couple of weeks ago.
I’m using the Lemmy web editor. The web client doesn’t let you change font sizes, but it does let you mark font as subscript or superscript, which is a smaller font size, so I did that.
My understanding is some mobile clients have problem with the subscript/superscript formatting, and the cause of that is on their end, not supporting the format text yet.
If you don’t see my license declaration in a smaller font, direct the devs of your client to look at this page, which is the formatting instructions from Lemmy, and specifically the subscript and superscript formatting.
From the article…
That’s what it comes down to, right there.
Google needs to spend money on people, and not just rely on the AI automation, because it’s obviously getting things wrong, its not judging context correctly.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)