Same here. Sounds pretty sustainable to me!

Of course the most productive comment is the least upvoted one. EDIT: After thinking about it, maybe it’s best to add an explanation to bare links.

Are you beginning to see things more clearly now?

It’s double speak. The translation is “We are evil and if you say something about what you see, we will silence you.”.

Sure, it’s advantageous in the short-term. I think this is where we misunderstand each other. What I’m trying to say is that under normal circumstances, individuals aren’t maximizing their output. They are just living as part of the community, following the unwritten rules and benefiting from that. (In the prisoner’s dilemma, this would be choice A).

If this is how everyone would act in their daily life, you would see crime, theft and abuse on an unimaginable level. No, people don’t always do what benefits them “at every individual point”. We are social creatures, acting as a community where the individuals benefit from working together. Although this has been successfully undermined by capitalism and other hierarchies.

This whole concept is also called, the Prisoner’s Dilemma, one of my favorite thought experiments because it shows how being rational can result in everyone being worse off.

Yes. The “tragedy of the commons” is a myth.

Without any limits, individual cattle owners have an incentive to overgraze the land, destroying its value to everybody.

This is factually false, because the land will be destroyed and individuals don’t benefit, not even in the short term. Commons work great (see open source software), but capitalism and power structures abuse and destroy them for short-term profit.

I guess really cold water isn’t really “wet” per-se. What did I just write…

What do you think the authors of the video don’t understand? You must have some insights if you say you understand AI better then everyone criticizing it.

Isn’t this treating the symptoms, not the cause? The real problem here seems to be that militaries and bad actors are killing people they obviously shouldn’t, but it feels like the article just accepts that as something that “downstream users” do.

I’m all for responsible software use, but I think the issue lies deeper than software licensing.

Makes sense. I never used Photoshop, so I don’t know how it compares. It’s been good enough for my needs so far.

If you’re still looking, try Krita, it’s a polished and powerful open source image manipulation program.

You’re thinking of this: https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt Maybe someone should make an AI-detector version of that.

What are you doing here on lemmy? Get back in the meeting!

I don’t see how rejecting 18th century-style factories or exploitative neural networks is a bad thing. We should have the option of saying “no” to the ideas of capitalists looking for a quick buck. There was an insightful blog post that I can’t find right now…

I find this question a little weird, because open source software (which includes the Fediverse) was already a very political movement from the beginning.

As for organizing, since there is no main authority or philosophy beyond make software open, it’s up to you and like-minded individuals to use the space as you seem fit.

That said, it is completely understandable that some users may feel uncomfortable using an account to access the service. For such cases we strongly recommend hosting your own deployment of Jitsi Meet. We spend a lot of effort to keep that a very simple process and this has always been the mode of use that gives people the highest degree of privacy.

Seems like you can avoid it by self-hosting. Still a very suspicious move, kinda defeats the whole point of an alternative to big tech conference services.

Google, GitHub and Facebook for starters but may modify the list later on

Maybe they could support some auth provider from some fediverse app? That would be kinda neat.

violations could bring fines worth up to 6 percent of their global revenue – which could amount to billions – or even a ban from the EU.

Not too shabby! Seems like the laws at least have some teeth.

I doubt anybody is saying ‘screw global warming, I’ll be fine in a cpu.

You’d be surprised what the tech billionaires are saying right now. They are definitely not tackling the problems of today, but are creating new ones by the minute.

Probably because it ignores issues that are relevant right now in favor of some theoretical distant future which will probably never pan out.