somerandom2407

5 ms·

1.
by somerandom2407 17d ago
Your brain, your values. Only you can know why you ascribe less value to things that AI readily produces, but it is fundamentally a choice you get to make. In the beforetimes, a lot of people didn't value software, but many software de
2.
by somerandom2407 27d ago
What do you think should happen if an artist views a lot of arts over their lifetime and then themself generates something similar to another artist's work? I would argue that collectively humans have been standing on the backs of othe
3.
by somerandom2407 27d ago
Is it fair to say, then, that artists who have trained on the work of prior artists should also not be able to protect their works unless they have directly received consent and have compensated all the artists whose works they have viewed
4.
by somerandom2407 27d ago
And this is one of the reasons some people are up in arms about Anthropic's recent inclusion of watermarking against anything Claude models touch. It will even take human-generated code that it works on and apply watermarks to it which
5.
by somerandom2407 3mo ago
I don't like it and I wasn't consulted about it. Given it is supposed to be representative of a united humanity or something like that, I'd be interested to know what proportion of the 8 billion people were consulted in its c
6.
by somerandom2407 4mo ago
I think it starts with social coercion, intimidation, exclusion, economic pressure and ostracism long before it builds into the confidence to take more overtly violent measures. I don't know him, but it certainly appeared as though he
7.
by somerandom2407 4mo ago
I just want to quickly jump on what you said about Linus. I know a lot of people look at his change and see it as a "growth moment", but my view is that he was forced to change by a growing body of people who take relatively extre
8.
by somerandom2407 1y ago
You have every right to take the content offline, or to put any technical barriers you desire in place to access it - but that's about all you should be able to do. If you don't want to lose money and don't feel confident tha
9.
by somerandom2407 1y ago
In a lot of circumstances, that is exactly the case. What the open source license stops is redistribution under terms that violate the license, not usage itself. An individual can very well take your open source code, make any changes they
10.
by somerandom2407 1y ago
Sure, you'll never get rid of all misleading information; however, without advertising the volume of shit will reduce radically, as much of the modern internet is built around profiteering and get rich quick schemes (influencers), whic
11.
by somerandom2407 1y ago
Back in the old days, people would share useful information in the internet of their own accord. That still happens a lot today, too! In my opinion, most of the stuff that's ad-supported is not worth my time, as the "content creat
12.
by somerandom2407 1y ago
You might have a wider audience if you put in on the app store. I only install very well-known software outside of the app store. For anything more niche, I need it to be on the app store to offer some assurance that it is not malicious and
13.
by somerandom2407 2y ago
You couldn't be more wrong about me. In-fact I did not vote for Trump and have always been in the centre, between the republicans and the democrats. Shockingly I'm considered right wing by the left and left wing by the right, albe
14.
by somerandom2407 2y ago
I think the other poster was just being polite, trying to have a discussion about the left's misuse of the term fascism, yet failed to account for the degree of intelligence required to understand such nuance. So let me spell it out fo
15.
by somerandom2407 2y ago
Why cherry-pick per-capita when what matters to the climate is actual output, not output per capita. Lets take Australia, as an example, their total co2 output is around 1% of the world's co2 output. If Australia ceased producing all o
16.
by somerandom2407 2y ago
Have you heard of Brave? It's a great browser with a built-in ad blocker founded by Brendan Eich, one of the co-founders of Mozilla and the creator of Javascript. I'm not a shill, I swear - I just think it's a great initiativ
17.
by somerandom2407 2y ago
The unpaid dev who produces something of value to users of Firefox. Removing the addon doesn't hurt him, and may hurt Firefox if people switch to Brave over this. Mozilla need to make changes to their review process or risk losing user
18.
by somerandom2407 2y ago
And problems like this could still have been avoided if their system required review by a second party before blocking an addon by a developer of good standing who has addons with a huge number of users. Sure, the individual doing the check
19.
by somerandom2407 2y ago
I care. I'll probably just switch to Brave instead of either installing this manually (risky) or using the full-blown addon (risky). The value proposition for Firefox has just diminished.
20.
by somerandom2407 2y ago
I can't tell you how to sell it, but I can tell you what you would need to offer me, for me to buy it as a security tool: Your company must: * be quite large, including dedicated security teams * have a rock solid lengthy reputation (o