Exactly we don't, and what's worse is that the "content" is getting to the point where we need _content_ blockers.
I recently got hit by an "article" that promised to tell me which three AAA games would be released with PS Plus soon. A three point bullet list was all I wanted. Instead I got pages after pages of word-manure about nothing at all for reasons I don't even understand. At the end of it I still couldn't tell you which three games the article was supposed to tell me about.
I foresee a bleak feature where we will deploy AI as "content blockers" to extract the useful content from the word-manure that is becoming the preferred way of working among internet "authors".
I think we'll be soon at the point where articles are written by asking AI to extend a three point bullet list to 30 pages, and read by asking AI to summarize articles into a three point bullet list.
This drives me nuts. It's been going on for years that a simple "if this, do that" deal is encoded in an overly elaborate 10 minute long YouTube video where at least 9 minutes of it is filler. You know, when you start skimming the comments to see if anyone bothered with summarizing it.
AI amplifies the problem by making it easier to produce filler, but the problem is whatever metrics are behind the monetization. You need users to "engage" with your content for at least x amount of time to earn y amount of money, while instead the earnings should be relative to and directly derived from how useful the content is to how many users.
Exactly how did you "get hit" by an article? Did somebody hack your computer and pointed your browser to it? Or did somebody ambush you on your walk to work and show a magazine with the article into your face?
If you seek out content from low quality sources, you get the low quality treatment. The only way for consumers to fight this is by paying for good quality content, which is often possible.
Burger King isn't going to improve the quality of their burgers or service by customers complaining. They'll do something when they see customers going somewhere else.
Yup, I keep mine enabled at all times. Anytime I've tried selectively disabling them, I get burnt with increasingly intrusive ads. I might be convinced to enable some kind of "ethical ads" filter that only permits ads are known to be unobtrusive and not track, but then you need to trust that whoever maintains that list wont succumb to incentives.
I do. I have turned off UBlock Origin at the learnopengl site as well others where the ads are unobtrusive enough to not block the view completely or require several actions on my part to view the contents. It also helps that the content is not "SEO optimised" bullcrap.
Mostly true, but I personally have it turned of for duckduckgo and it shows me some ads with [ad] label. Actually if you wanted to disable ads there, you wouldn't even need an ad blocker, there's toggle in the settings
While I agree with you in general, I am one of the very few people who do it for the small amount of sites I support. This is not a smart decision from the technical point of view but it's been fine so far.
I guess the ship sailed a long time ago, but while no one is going to turn off their ad blocker, they could make people not use one in the first place.
Thats funny. I have a mx master 3 and its handsdown the best workmouse i have ever had. I work in strange places and the mouse works on every surface. Even glass, mirrors, server doors, skin, pants. I hate the app with a passion and use BTT.
Isn’t there some kind of term for when the government controls the means of production. I’ll think about it. It’s one of those terms that’s been thrown around so loosely by this regime you knew they were going there.
I don't see a good reason to downvote you, though that's a pattern here these days. But I do have a question about your statement. This move certainly has the hallmarks of fascism. But how is it corporatism when it's the elected government that's trying to punish a corporation? Granted that this regime is deep in the pockets of the corporations and billionaires. But it looks like they would have spared Anthropic if they capitulated to the regime's demands and bent their back over. This seems more like retribution for refusal of loyalty rather than corporate sabotage.
There are always winners and losers in political discussions not every corporation could have control over decision making. But that doesn't mean companies aren't playing a major rool in decisions. I'd imagine companies owned by Larry Ellison (fox and soon cnn) have a much larger role in decision making and agenda setting that most people are comfortable with.
Corporatism/corporatocracy is about representative groups from industries being embedded in the state and their interests shaping state policy.
The current US administration's relationships with corporations is more seeking to maximise how much bribe money it can extract from them, whilst undermining them with counterproductive policies no matter how big the tax breaks are.
I'm not sure I fully understood your point, but about the question "how fascism if elected?": the Nazi Party won (i.e., it was the most voted party) in multiple elections in the late 20s/early 30s.
I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't asking how it can be fascism if the government is elected. I'm aware of the answer to that.
I was asking how an (elected fascist) government can be corporatist, if they are fighting a corporation. Doesn't a corporatist government fight for the corporations? From the answers I see, this government is partially corporatist. They'll fight smaller corporations if the latter don't fall in line.
I laughed. No in europe when you win a case like this the judge usually forces the losing party to pay the legal expenses of the winner. Especially if the losing party is a big corporation.
> Under what statute is it illegal to request legal fees?
You can request anything you want? Granting it would be illegal.
An attorney asking the judge to break the law and award attorney fees is literally asking for something illegal in most circumstances. There are exceptions. (By illegal I mean contrary to law.)
It's funny that 4 people downvoted me instead of bothering to check Wikipedia.
Don’t ban it. Regulate the shit out of it and keep it in academia and prevent it from toppling our economy by sucking up all investment. It’s worse than private equity right now.
I feel this is wrong. Especially the dont try to save the world part.
You should enjoy the simple things. As Emma Goldman once said: a revolution without dancing is not one worth fighting for. But she did not mean the procedural ceremonial dances as we haven seen at protests by liberals, she meant that life should still have fun things or else the tiranny after the revolution will be similar or worse.
If the cintrini report is true, one of the only good ways to solve this crisis would be a butlerian jihad. It would be necessary to destroy all autonomous agents and ban them.
With good, i mean a way that is good for the most of mankind. If everyone is not trying to save the world this jihad will not happen.
I had to smile to myself when I noticed contrastive negation—with em dashes!—in a text written in the 90s. LLMs don't dictate what good writing is; people do.
we will almost certainly see a mass reactionary movement across disciplines to adopt styles out of distribution for LLMs, a cultural arms race that will be discussed in depth in the decades to come.
reply