Agree with the first paragraph. Jacob Coxon (allegedly not a grifter) claims Anthropic and OpenAI are racing towards evil superintelligence, so both companies should be in trouble by now and their CEOs should be imprisoned or…
… What’s this? Coxon is now calling for the companies to regulate themselves? The ones he doesn’t trust? That’s odd.
Billionaires desperately want to create slavery again, don’t they
Instance registration requirements check out.
I find that having my own domain would just create the same problem all over again plus a couple more (read: registering for and maintaining that domain, especially while trying to do that privately)… I appreciate the clarification though, the fact they give you a free account in conjunction with a forwarding service of my choice is thoughtful at least.
Still a feature I can pay for and have paid for, if they ever felt like expanding the domains they provided.
I personally prefer addresses that don’t share any identifying information with each other, since those are easier to correlate. E.g. degen-channel5 and degen-baddragon could easily be correlated by somebody who happens to have both lists side by side, and based on the service, guess how to spam you in new and creative ways
My ideal setup is [random_characters]@[service], where there is zero correlation besides the fact I use the service to begin with. It doesn’t look like port87 offers that, which is a real shame
It’s almost suspiciously convenient that politicians are being lobbied into demanding “killswitches” for the one thing that already has a killswitch built in, but not for the things that actually need them
I remember when GPT2 was “too dangerous to release” back in 2019. Funny how Sam Altman released it anyway.
They’ve been itching for more releases to push more AI updates for a while. I wish I was exaggerating. Here’s three examples of AI features being tacked onto bugfix releases:
(For those who don’t know, bugfix releases only change the final part of the version number and are meant to fix bugs, while feature updates are meant for larger releases and tend to introduce them.)
Safari has uBlock Origin Lite.
iOS also has Brave, which apparently [created the adblock engine](It’s FOSS itsfoss.com › news › firefox-ships-brave-adblock-engine Firefox Has Quietly Integrated Brave’s Adblock Engine) Mozilla borrowed (and weakened)
iOS also has an independently developed browser with true uBlock Origin support. It doesn’t have official App Store support, but Mozilla could lobby for it.
I maintain that AI features should have been an optional extension, not a mandatory baked-in feature that could have been accomplished with one.
Especially because Mozilla isn’t just devoting developer time to it, they have been pushing whole feature updates to these “optional” components inside bugfix releases
This is a very funny graphic to have in the middle of the article
Putting it behind a paywall while insisting they’re “Essential journalism for historic times” is a punchline and a punch in the face
Regardless of what people think about AI, must be a real slap in the face to go to that homepage and see AI-generated copy, go to the “pay $40 for early access” page, and see AI-generated logos for the various paid tiers.
Looks like let another cynical attempt to cash in on old IP. The last one was Digg, which was just as disappointing, but it’s actually operational and you can see it suck (read: repost Twitter tweets) in real time.
Yet another article written by Mike Masnick, tech reporter with a huge conflict of interest (he’s a Director at Bluesky, a social network).
The classic case with Meta is that many of its efforts to study how to make its platforms safer were used against the company as proof that “they knew!” their platforms were unsafe!
The lesson for the rest of the tech industry is grim and unambiguous: never study whether your own platform is causing harm. The mere existence of the research will be turned into Exhibit A that “they knew,” both in the court of public opinion and in actual courts.
What strange framing.
Meta wasn’t learning about safety out of the kindness of their hearts. They were identifying harmful features and keeping them. They were identifying addictive features and focusing on building them.
We don’t know this because Meta wanted us to know. It’s whistleblowers who testified about it.
there are some oddly specific requirements:
Meta SMPs will disable Teen Users from applying Cosmetic Procedure Filters to their content.
The agreement clarifies that this means:
… any digital filter or augmented reality (AR) effect that distorts, sculpts, redefines, or idealizes a user’s face in a way that cannot be achieved without cosmetic surgery or extreme makeup techniques.
And, sure, I can understand why such content might be unhealthy for teens. But it is, in fact, Constitutionally-protected speech.
This is such a reach. The best argument Mike can give in favor of face filters is that they’re free speech, apparently, which is dubious (we’ve already decided that under-13s don’t get any social media “speech” at all). Maybe Mike is in favor of removing that caveat too.
Ironically, according to the article, the underpaid workers had actually started using it. Seems like Amazon got a taste of the future they advertised, and decided they didn’t want it themselves.
Among many other issues (like two wrongs not making a right): This is very misleading.
The article discusses the emissions of cars on the road i.e. actively polluting , not cars in existence.
Edit: I see you are a big AI fan, so due to this conflict of interest I doubt there will be the chance of fruitful discussion of the real harm it causes.
Anthropic already shifting from monthly annualized revenue announcements, to speculative revenue announcements… That’s a good sign, right?
There are so many downsides to this method compared to a password manager too. There’s no encryption, email itself is a minefield when it comes to decent security practices, and I’ve often been stuck waiting for a login link to arrive before I can actually use whatever I was trying to manage.
You never had a standard for accepting evidence? Why did you even ask then?
Okay I guess, but how about we have one regardless of the latest snake oil promises?