The worst part is the banks. You have to get lucky to be allowed to use online banking without agreeing to some sucky TOS.

If I run some AI model on my GPU and power my computer via solar power and some batteries, am I actually contributing significantly to GHG emissions?

Like what is the embodied energy of an AI model?

As usual, pundits and scientists confuse what is and what could be with the truth. For example plastic recycling isn’t possible because “right now economics don’t make it profitable”. Meaning capitalism is killing us, not plastics. I suspect the same is true for AI.

Not sure what sapphire means, but here is the article. Just appending records and differential backups would seem to be the way to go.

the new optical disks are claimed to be “highly stable so there are no special storage requirements.” The researchers tout an expected shelf life of 50 to 100 years

I had (naively) hoped that starlink wouldn’t even need a license to operate in a specific country. When their satellites eventually fully communicate between them without ground station it becomes incredibly powerful. Sort of like one of those ancient world wonders. Technology now allows to live and work everywhere in the world or on the ocean in seasteads.

Unfortunately it’s owned by greedy oligarchs and the planned multiple constellations make a kessler syndrome more and more likely.

I wish there was a cheap and millennia-long lasting microfilm you could transfer books to. A projector is a pretty simple device to operate. Hmm that reminds me of “Last Words (2020)”.

Well yeah but BluRay is still much more expensive and smaller capacity. Lets hope this new 125TB disk works out

M-Disk is rated to last like 100 1000 years. They are also working on a 125 Terabyte CD. Optical storage is the way to go.

deleted by creator

I just want a holodeck future without having to pay by the hour to DisneComBroSonyFlixMount.

Thanks for the info. But lets say you want to train a (future) AI to spot and tag disinformation and misinformation. You’d need to use and curate actual data from social media sites and articles.

If copyright is extended to learning from and analyzing publicly available data, such an AI will only be possible by licensing that data. Which will be monetize to maximize profit, first some lump sum, then later “per gb” and then later “per use”.

I’m sure open source AI will make due and for many applications there is enough free data, but I can imagine a lot of cases where there wont. Anything that requires “commercially successful” media, articles, newspapers, screenplays, movies, books, social media posts and comments, images, photos, video clips…

We’re basically setting up a world where the intellectual wealth of our civilization is being transformed into a commodity and then will be transferred into the hands of a few rich capitalists.

And even if there is acceptable amount of free data, if the principle is that data needs to be specifically licensed to learn and train and derive AI works from it - that makes free data use expensive too. It needs to be specifically vetted and is still vulnerable to be sued for mistakes or outrageous claims of copyright. Similar to patents, the uncertainty requires higher capitalization for any startup to defend against lawsuits.

The joke is of course that “paying for copyright” is impossible in this case. ONLY the large social media companies that own all the comments and content that has accumulated by the community have enough data to train AI models. Or sites like stock photo libraries or deviantart who own the distribution rights for the content. That means all copyright arguments practically argue that AI should be owned by big corporations and should be inaccessible to normal people.

Basically the “means of generation” will be owned by the capitalists, since they are the only ones with the economic power to license these things.

That is basically the worst case scenario. Not only will the value of work diminish greatly, the advances in productivity will also be only accessible to big capitalists.

Of course, that is basically inevitable anyway. Why wouldn’t they want this? It’s just sad seeing the stupid morons arguing for this as if they had anything to gain.

You should look up regime change and color revolution. The US openly speaks about subverting and supplanting democratic governments in other countries if they don’t align with their foreign policy goals. And they have done it many times.

What Russia is doing is despicable but “they learned it from watching US”.

I’d like something like a ring or wristwatch that unlocks my PC when I’m close enough to the keyboard, and locks it again when I go away. For that tracking would be pretty good.

Fundamentally the problem only has temporary solutions unless you have some kind of system that makes using bots expensive.

One solution might be to use something like FIDO2 usb security tokens. Assuming those tokens cost like 5€. Instead of using an email you can create an account that is anonymous (assuming the tokens are sold anonymously) and requires a small cost investment. If you get banned you need to buy a new fido2 token.

PS: Fido tokens still cost too much but also you can make your own with a raspberry pico 2 and just overwrite and make a new key. So this is no solution either without some trust network.

You’ve been arrested for breaking the law!

Well lol I’m talking about “meaningless” art but that is 99% of “art” before AI.

I feel we need a term for “copyright bros”.

The more important point is that social media companies can claim to OWN all the content needed to train AI. Same for image sites. That means they get to own the AI models. That means the models will never be free. Which means they control the “means of generation”. That means that forever and ever and ever most human labour will be worth nothing while we can’t even legally use this power. Double fucked.

YOU the user/product will not gain anything with this copyright strongmanning.

And to the argument itself: Just because AI is better at learning from existing works, faster, more complete, better memory, doesn’t meant that it’s fundamentally different than humans learning from artwork. Almost EVERY artist arguing for this is stealing themselves since they learned and was inspired by existing works.

But I guess the worst possible outcome is inevitable now.

Have been using it a while since the browser fiasco. It’s awesome but the workflow has a few niggles:

I’d love a theater mode that uses the full width of the window but still allow the title and comments below. No sidebar or scrollbar besides the video, more like MPV.

Also LibRedirect isn’t perfect with embedded videos. I’d just like to have a link I can click so it opens in FreeTube.

And links from the browser are always opened in the first active window instead of opening a new window.

I just use native API and VPN

Well even if you’d keep advertising if you turn YT into a public utility or non-profit, MUCH more of that money would go to creators. And/or much less advertising. Or less annoying or more discerning ads. And of course no demonetization because you talk about problematic issues.

Without advertising you’d need some kind of revenue. I imagine something like e.g. a EU wide “universal content subscription” or something like that. So if you create good content the various distribution channels simply track what you watch, anonymize it (firefox has this new system that got them in hot waters) and distribute the money from the giant pool to the creators.

Maybe start with a universal newspaper subscription so we’d have a free press again, new newspapers or channels that produce independent news with only the viewer as a customer, without ads.

For music in the EU / Germany there are collection agencies that already do this sort of thing. So it’s not even without precedent.

Obviously there are tons of issues to work out, but the biggest is simply that the elite do everything to gain and maintain power or wealth and this would go contrary to that.