So people are morons?

Serif (which owns Affinity) was just bought out by Canva, so it’s only a moment of time before they are enshittified unfortunately.

Probably the ones outlined here, which you should be aware of, given there are statements from you included in the article: https://docs.beehaw.org/docs/important-questions-decisions-and-reflections/beehaw-lemmy-and-a-vision-of-the-fediverse/

They are probably using the default installed theme, which doesn’t have scalable icons so everything is horribly pixelated. Not sure why it’s still the default, but as you said it’s pretty easy to change.

Because YouTube and Twitch are notorious for reducing ad payments or demontising creators. Have you forgotten about the adpocalypse already? Patreon also increased their fees with very little notice in 2019.

It’d honestly be an idiotic move to not take a video sponsor if they’re offered, because that is guaranteed and likely upfront, supplemental income to support the creation of videos.

Nebula is collectively creator owned, so it’s the only one of those that won’t fuck over creators for more money, but as I said, not a lot of people are paying for subscriptions. It’s small, the per-creator payouts are probably even less than Youtube.

And finally, the real answer: Man’s gotta eat. Simple.

All of that considered, I didn’t even see the sponsor ads you’re complaining about because I have Sponsorblock skip them automatically.

Well you can watch it ad free on Nebula, as linked in the video description. I honestly can’t hate on him for that decision, he needs to eat as much as the rest of us, and unless we’re paying for a Nebula subscription, video sponsors are the only way to do that.

It’s naive to think AI is going to disrupt the status quo from the rich. It’s just going to make the rich richer. Just look at who owns the AI.

It’s not weird at all, he owns a car company.

It’s gonna get a lot worse before then.

Try porkbun. They have static hosting options, including to host from a GitHub repo.

Unless it is explicity specified in a contract, no you wouldn’t. Most people don’t.

Well that’s not how it works with AI generated text or images. OpenAI can’t copyright anything ChatGPT produces no more than anyone else can.

Are drugs made this way unpatentable, like AI generated images or text aren’t copyrightable?

I am aware of that, but those rules were written before technology like this was conceivable.

That’s something that can currently be done by a human and is generally considered fair use.

That’s kind of the point though isn’t it? Fair use is only fair use because it’s a human doing it, not an algorithm.

Cory never misses.

I think both of these assumptions are wrong. I think most apple users are just people who aren’t “computer people” and want an operating system that just works to do the things they want, and are ok with paying extra to not have to worry about drivers or linux/windows issues.

Of course there are apple fanboys, but I don’t think they are the largest subset of users.

-Sent from my iPhone.

Pay 44 billion for a brand, then change it. Pure genius.

Hi, it’s me the author!

First of all, thanks for reading.

In the article I explain that it is not exactly what authors do, we reading and writing are an inherently human activity and the consumption and processing of massive amounts of data (far more than a human with a photographic memory could process in a hundred million lifetimes) is a completely different process to that.

I also point out that I don’t have a problem with LLMs as a concept, and I’m actually excited about what they can do, but that they are inherently different from humans and should be treated as such by the law.

My main point is that authors should have the ability to decree that they don’t want their work used as training data for megacorporations to profit from without their consent.

So, yes in a way it is about money, but the money in question being the money OpenAI and Meta are making off the backs of millions of unpaid and often unsuspecting people.

Don’t see people chomping the bit to take down other sites that have been doing this for decades.

But this hasn’t been happening for decades. Machine learning algorithms are an incredibly new way of processing data. All those scenarios you are talking about required a human to be the one doing the reading and summarising, which for most authors is fine, they expect people to read their work and summarise it, or quote it.

What they don’t expect is for that work to be fed in full into a private companies data set to train a machine how to duplicate their content at speeds completely incomparable to human capabilities. We’re talking about something completely new, completely unseen and you’re disregarding the rights of those creators to not want their art, music or writing to be fed into the endless churn of data for these megacorporations.

Also, it’s champing at the bit, not chomping.