Except they pocket millions of dollars by breaking that rule and the original creators of their “essential data” don’t get a single cent while their creations indirectly show up in content generated by AI. If it really was about changing the rules they wouldn’t be so obvious in making it profitable, but rather use that money to make it available for the greater good AND pay the people that made their training data. Right now they’re hell-bent in commercialising their products as fast as possible.

If their statement is that stealing literally all the content on the internet is the only way to make AI work (instead of for example using their profits to pay for a selection of all that data and only using that) then the business model is wrong and illegal. It’s as a simple as that.

I don’t get why people are so hell-bent on defending OpenAI in this case; if I were to launch a food-delivery service that’s affordable for everyone, but I shoplifted all my ingredients “because it’s the only way”, most would agree that’s wrong and my business is illegal. Why is this OpenAI case any different? Because AI is an essential development? Oh, and affordable food isn’t?

Nice job ignoring the very real possibility that your computer has been part of a botnet for years. The botnet thanks you for your service.

Finally. The vaccines are working 👀

I was so ready to go hard on this comment, you got me there pal.

I see a lot of people comment that this isn’t that bad and that it might even be acceptable, and that’s exactly the problem here: it’s a gateway drug and if we normalise this, Canonical will keep pushing the limits of what they can pull off before it’s not acceptable anymore, and that sounds when it’s too late.

It’s never been free. We’ve always paid with our data but now they’re being extremely forward about it in hopes to comply with EU laws.

Have you tried a so-called “body check” meditation already? It works better for me than the usual thought-focussed meditations as there’s generally less fidgeting with thoughts but a calming form of distraction instead.

Of course the software is a problem, but its hardware is the same as an iPhone 4. It has 256MB working memory. Most browsers take up that kind of ram four-fold to just have a window open. Although I do agree that any and all devices should have the freedom to run whatever software you want, even Linux would be having a hard time on a 800mhz processor with so little ram for anything other than basic terminal work.

Just wanna scoot in here and mention that yes, it can be very difficult for some people to do very mundane tasks, such as cooking an egg. Trust me, I know how depression fucks with your system and it indeed sometimes makes you incapable of spending five minutes on boiling an egg :(

I’ve seen rich people do worse.

And big corp wants to smother it before it’s bigger. It perfectly makes sense. It’s so much more difficult to kill a service/movement when it’s already widely adopted and popular. Identifying small, new players in the field and disrupting those takes very few resources for them, a rounding error, if you will.

The fediverse has the potential to be a threat to some big corps out there, and Lemmy is just one speck in a sea of a lot of specks. Together those specks are growing the fediverse, and the only way to disrupt it is to get rid of those specks.

Seriously though. It could be so easy: there’s a wealth of websites with huge collections of recipes. An app/feature like this from the supermarket company would potentially generate huge amounts of a traffic to such a site making a collaboration mutually beneficial. And yet, they go with some half-assed AI-“solution”, probably because the markering team starts moaning when AI’s mentioned.

That, or this was all intentional to go viral as a supermarket. Bad publicity is still publicity!

100% for traffic/numbers to show investors and advertising companies. Don’t give them the satisfaction, it’s better to stay away.

He already has everything, check the Instagram specs. Threads is nothing new in that regard.

Well, let’s be real: it’s caught on way better than Google+ and is already pretty mainstream with lots of people flocking over in need for a Twitter replacement. Google+ entered into a space that was saturated by Facebook with very little extra value (or none at all) when switching.