sorted by: new top controversial old
[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 0 points 1 week ago

That's a a bit too absolute way to look at it.

From their point of view the goal isn't to abolish human involvement, but to minimise the cost. So if they can do the job at the same quality with a quarter of the personnel through AI assistance for less cost, obviously they're gonna do that.

At the same time, just because humans having crappy jobs is the current way we solve the problem of people getting money, doesn't mean we should keep on doing that. Basic income would be a much nicer solution for that, for example. Try to think a bit less conservatively.

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 1 points 1 week ago

I'm not sure how long ago that was, but LLM context sizes have grown exponentially in the past year, from 4k tokens to over a hundred k. That doesn't necessarily affect the quality of the output, although you can't expect it to summarize what it can't hold on memory.

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago

troed:

It's problematic when people conflate their gut feelings for facts.

Also troed:
I understand activitypub better than creator of Lemmy

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago

Well, that convinced me. Thanks for your insight on the matter, I now know how to value the rest of your comments.

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago

And in one of those cases they are violating a very clear "this is not okay" signal, and in the other they are not.

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 2 points 2 weeks ago

What I think or what they "may" do is irrelevant regarding public data. What matters is sending a clear signal what you are and are not okay with.

Whether you actively participate in helping them get your data or not might not effectively matter in them acquiring it, but it may heavily impact the fine they get for it afterwards. You might be okay with them getting your data for free, but I'm not, sweet summer child.

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago

They can still train ML models (create profit) from the data they get from you without consent.

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 3 points 2 weeks ago

I thought it was push after subscription.

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago

Public is not the same as public domain.

I'm not a lawyer, but Federation would probably imply consent to sharing the data. Whereas defederation would strongly imply you're not okay with sharing the data with that entity.

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 23 points 2 weeks ago

So... Instances like lemmy.world, that this is posted to?

yes, I'm federated with them as well, but shit like this is why I dislike them being so big. In the end all the smaller instances can either have strong morals and integrity, or have access to the largest amount of content in the fediverse, but not both.

[-] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 2 points 3 weeks ago

Gotcha. That sucks.

45

In a blog post released on Monday, VP of Privacy Sandbox Anthony Chavez said that Google is “proposing an updated approach that elevates user choice” by allowing users to select whether or not they want to enable cookies on Chrome and adjust that choice “at any time.”

“Instead of deprecating third-party cookies, we would introduce a new experience in Chrome that lets people make an informed choice that applies across their web browsing,” Chavez wrote.

view more: next ›

admin

joined 1 year ago