Sounds like the plot of a 90s video game

The push to require paying to read content that is shared openly on the web is designed to drive a feasibility wedge between large and small operations.

It means that a small handful of organizations will actually have the funds to be able to buy enough training data, and that all other smaller AI ventures will be illegal.

This is designed to concentrate AI power into a few hands.

Think critically about the narratives being fed to you. AIs must be allowed to read the web, because if they are not then we will have a unipolar AI ecosystem and the future of humanity will be extremely dark.

We need a multipolar AI ecosystem and the only way to do that is to have lots of small players making their own AI.

If we have a multipolar AI ecosystem, then AI will be forced to play nice because of the effects of parity, and therefore AI will develop along a prosocial, negotiating, respectful path.

Unipolar AI will be tyrannical, cruel, and evil. Unipolar AI will be the result of making it illegal to train AI on web content.

Please see past the propagandistic narrative. Today it is OpenAI that is fighting for this right. Tomorrow it will be smaller players. That is a good thing. That is what we want.

Not from an ASCII

This is why it was dumb to give ChatGPT access to the knives

If I go there will be trouble.

If I stay it will be double.

I propose that when abusers are found to have caused a wrongful death, they are put to death in a slow and painful way. For example we could feed them to ants.

Nobody’s freedom is being impinged upon by banning them

Actually yes, the freedom to use those applications is infringed by banning them

Then the identity still has a home.

I’ve implemented Oauth and you still have an identity provider.

The vast majority of people who use lemmy have not read the activitypub protocol, and signed up to use lemmy as it exists today

Identity belonging to an instance, changing to identity belonging to the fediverse as a whole.

Identities containing @instance format.

Identities being federated.

At a more abstract level, inviting a bunch of people to play a game, and then changing the rules of the game, is a shitty thing to do.

The fediverse has rules built into it. It has a way that it works. Changing that makes it something else.

Maybe failover identities that consume the primary identity’s activities as a log. The failover identity (let’s call them jump clones for fun eh?) can be stood up as primary if the primary goes down (gets banned, instance dies, etc)

My potential argument against it starts with asking where the credentials are stored for authenticating this identity.

Currently the home instance stores the hashed password and performs authentication.

In a way, the identity “belongs to” the place that does authentication, which now happens to be the instance.

If identity is decoupled from an instance, that means authentication decouples from an instance.

If the identity “belongs to” the fediverse as a whole, then that means the fediverse as a whole has an authentication mechanism.

Unless we can come up with a distributed authentication mechanism, that means the fediverse as a whole has some authentication service, as in one, which means centralized.

This therefore breaks decentralization, unless the authentication is somehow handled in a distributed way. Maybe consensus or something on a hashed password? But if those hashed passwords are stored in a distributed manner, then you’d need a super long password to prevent rainbow table attacks on the passwords, given the hashed values would essentially be public information.

Maybe public keys are stored in a blockchain? I don’t know this is beyond me in the details.

But to summarize the problem at a data model level, an identity belongs to an instance, because the instance can authenticate them. If the identity now belongs to the whole fediverse, then the whole fediverse needs to be able to authenticate them, which if not handled correctly could lead to centralized authentication, centralized banning, censorship, reddit, etc.

Can you provide a quick summary?

but we’re talking about people who attempted a coup here, these aren’t hypothetical pre-crimes

We’re talking about the entire country of Brazil — 200 million people — being cut off from using X.

You have to continually practice fluidity and actively learn things lest you solidify and lose that skill like any other.

I’m all for keeping one’s cognitive skills. However it is a fact that this decline happens, and that there is a phase of life where one has wisdom without necessarily having the same raw intelligence they had before. The wisdom is encoded in crystallized intelligence.

By wisdom here I mean “The tendency to make decisions that turn out well”.

My father was an equipment operator well into his 70s. After he retired they kept bringing him back to train the younger guys, and to get things don’t they couldn’t get done.

That was possible because those machines don’t change too much as time marches on. Because they use a stable platform, his organization was able to do better work by relying on his deep expertise. He could train those younger guys because it was the same platform he’d always used. Same dirt, same physics, mostly the same machines, same techniques, same pitfalls, etc.

His fluid intelligence is almost zero. The man’s practically an ASIC at this point, yet he’s fascinating to talk to and competent in the world. Fluid intelligence is not the only way to get things done.

We of course play plenty of video games together to keep him sharp. We also eat mushrooms, paper when necessary, and he works out a lot. We do all we can, believe me.

PHP is still in use and Wordpress is still somehow a behemoth. But the fact is that PHP has fallen out of favor, isn’t used by new projects, and there’s less demand for people with that skillset

Also while I’m driving, my Uber app locks up. Siri talks to me in a halting, broken voice, and responds with “something went wrong”. Google Maps shows a brief flash of my home before flipping to my current location. Then back to home again, then back to my current location. Spotify doesn’t remember what song I was listening to. Amazon Prime Video can’t remember what episode I was last watching.

Enshittification is everywhere. Our tech is buggy as fuck and solved problems in project management and devops are recurring. It’s not just about focusing on advertisers’ needs over customers. It’s also about wanting to kick out the greybeards as part of our great cultural revolution. It’s about driving trains into tunnels without adequate ventilation because fuck the previous generation thinking they know better than me.

It is the case that new technologies are introduced all the time, but that’s not necessarily right.

This example doesn’t work as well with C/++ since that’s older than most people here (though the language has also gone through iterations) and likely won’t be going away any time soon. But still, in most cases you probably don’t want to use that language for general work.

Why not? Because you won’t be able to hire younger devs? That is a function of this culture of pushing for change in everything. Younger people don’t learn C++ because it’s a little harder to read and because culturally we don’t respect established things. I’m sure there’s a word I don’t know here, but we generally have a culture of hating the past.

The good news is though, that it’s relatively easy to transfer core skills between most languages.

I agree. Design patterns, work patterns, these transcend languages. And they’re 99% of the success or failure of a project.

And yet here we are emphasizing how C++ and Rust can’t realistically coexist in a serious project, because there’s some mismatch in their capabilities. I point to the current conundrum as the counter to this idea of transferability. The devil’s in the details and if the wisdom transfers between languages so well then we don’t need new languages.

Fundamentally, the question is “What are these news things that need to be done by code, that weren’t being done by code 30 years ago, such that it necessitates new languages?”

It’s cool to be able to tell your college buddies you’re building a new programming language.

In fact, it’s great that people are making new languages as a way of keeping language design wisdom alive. It’s great that CS kids build logic circuits from scratch for the same reason.

But then again, Netflix can’t remember what episode I was watching, when I’m almost certain they had that ability a few years ago.

So basically you’re saying one of the best things you can do for yourself as a dev is be young.

It’s a well-documented fact that as people get older their fluid intelligence declines.

If you predicate your tech culture on requiring high fluid intelligence, you (a) make less readable code since the people writing it have more working memory and can hold more lines in their mind at a time and (b) break long-term institutional memory resulting in the reoccurrence of solved problems.

At the level of organizational architecture, a culture of emphasizing fluid intelligence as the strategy for attacking problems and adaptation causes serious losses of efficiency, and hence fluidity at a higher scale.

Ensuring compatibility with greybeards’ brains is key to long term success, and that means respecting an upper boundary on the rate of tools change.

People who model learning new things as a process without costs are also the worst.

“Because that’s how we’ve always done it” is a far more valid reason for doing something in a particular way than it is given credit for.

deleted by creator

Have you heard of the research showing conservativism is highly associated with Big Five personality traits (which are considered mostly immutable)?

I hope you understand the implications of that finding when paired with a statement like:

conservatism is the single biggest threat to humanity and should be eradicated