Part of the headache here is that this situation inherently props up a few monopolistic platforms, rather than allowing people to use whatever payment system is available in their own countries. Some of this can be worked around using cryptocurrencies – famously, the Mitra project leverages Monero for this very purpose, although I’m told it now can accept other forms of payment as well.

Hell yeah, I didn’t know about Mitra. It sounds like it’s a Patreon esque kind of deal with what the payments part is for.

Quickly and effortlessly get some music playing that can act as a backdrop for your real activity such as working, driving, cooking, hosting friends, etc. Keep it rolling indefinitely.

“Discover” new music by statistical means based on your average tastes.

This is the main thing I want out of music software tbh.

I think maybe they wouldn’t if they are trying to scale their operations to scanning through millions of sites and your site is just one of them

I haven’t played neopets, is there something about its design that would make the situation better than roblox?

We can’t afford to make any of this. We don’t have the money for the compute required or to pay for the lawyers to make the law work for us

I don’t think this is entirely true; yeah, large foundational models have training costs that are beyond the reach of individuals, but plenty can be done that is not, or can be done by a relatively small organization. I can’t find a direct price estimate for Apertus, and it looks like they used their own hardware, but it’s mentioned they used ten million gpu hours, and GH200 gpus; I found a source online claiming a rental cost of $1.50 per hour for that hardware, so I think the cost of training this could be loosely estimated to be something around 20 million dollars.

That is a lot of money if you are one person, but it’s an order of magnitude smaller than the settlements of billions of dollars being paid so far by the biggest AI companies for their hasty unauthorized use of copyrighted materials. It’s easy to see how copyright and legal costs could potentially be the bottleneck here preventing smaller actors from participating.

It should benefit the people, so it needs to change. It needs to be “expanded” (I wouldn’t call it that, rather “modified” but I’ll use your word) in that it currently only protects the wealthy and binds the poor. It should be the opposite.

How would that even work though? Yes, copyright currently favors the wealthy, but that’s because the whole concept of applying property rights to ideas inherently favors the wealthy. I can’t imagine how it could be the opposite even in theory, but in practice, it seems clear that any legislation codifying limitations on use and compensation for AI training will be drafted by lobbyists of large corporate rightsholders, at the obvious expense of everyone with an interest in free public ownership and use of AI technology.

But we can’t afford to pay. I don’t think open models like the one in the OP article would be developed and released for free to the public if there was a complex process of paying billions of dollars to rightsholders in order to do so. That sort of model would favor a monopoly of centralized services run only by the biggest companies.

TikTok

I think you’re always going to have problems with a lack of authenticity on platforms where opaque algorithms do all the work of deciding what gets popular and what gets shown to who.

I like it, more people should adopt unusual typing quirks imo

For me what triggered getting a lot of malicious login attempts in the logs was pointing a dns record directly at my ip

What’s the best way to pirate a deck of cards

Wasn’t my choice to end it, but working out did help, the physical discomfort dulls the emotional pain. Although I did it at home rather than going to a gym. Years later I’m still more in shape than I was before that episode.

What about a way to donate (held in reserve for that purpose?) money after the fact for specific commits, and then have a way to indicate which things you’d be most likely to donate to going forward if they are completed? This would mean less reliable payments since there wouldn’t be a guarantee any given contribution would result in a payout, but there wouldn’t be any disincentive to work on things and there would be a general idea of what donators want. Plus doing it that way would eliminate the need for a manual escrow process.

I hate the idea of software/hardware that can prove that the user does not have control over it so much

Maybe a little, but I think it fits pretty well, if you look at this from a “fuck copyright” angle. It’s easy to see the problems with what Disney is doing here and in general.

I bet they also hope to ultimately corral all fanart into spaces they directly control.

Even if they are trying to hack me it’s only polite. Plus on the very remote chance they somehow find this and care they would have slightly more info about me.

Tried setting this up, caught a few already

Barring civilians from using encryption and software deemed dangerous is a new level imo. These are the tools we have to fight this stuff, maintaining those rights is a big deal.

I have read some articles about this, and I can see how it makes sense in some contexts. Like iirc when this happened to Red Lobster, they were able to make money through a combination of ripping off a certain group of investors, and the significant value of the company’s real estate holdings. That makes sense.

In the case of online magazine equivalents though I really don’t get it. What is there to sell off? Shouldn’t any potential long term profits be priced in at the point they get bought out? If the company has tangible assets like offices, couldn’t they just sell those without firing anyone and have people work from home? The intangible assets are all directly tied to the publication’s reputation and audience, which seems like it would die off fast without anything worthwhile on the site.

In many cases, the best decision for the firm is the one that directly undermines the company it controls.

How though? I don’t doubt this is a real thing, but there isn’t really a satisfying explanation being offered here. What the article is saying sounds like the process is, take profitable business, throw in garbage, somehow more profit. Where’s the money coming from?