> The court order came after news organizations expressed concern that people using ChatGPT to skirt paywalls "might be more likely to 'delete all [their] searches' to cover their tracks,"
Is this fucking seriously the fucking case? Fucking holy fucking goddamn shit. "We want this shit crawled by search engines but we will sue the shit out of you if you somehow provide a means to hop the paywall!" The news orgs are fuckeder than I thought.
@p@miscbrains@fluffy If I understand it correctly, in order to keep people going through paywalls, you're not allowed to share links on facebook in Canada...
@p@fsebugoutzone.org@fluffy@fsebugoutzone.org I mean it's just a layer of obfuscation re: copyright. But mr AI, tell me what this article says that i would normally have to pay for to read is "new." You would have thought initially like I did, that they were trying to dodge discovery. Sadly not the case it seems.
@p@ForbiddenDreamer@fluffy@miscbrains yeah canada had some bill where the majority of our news content has to be canadian and websites like facebook didn't want to comply with whatever it would take to make that happen so they just flat out block it. its pretty funny
@graf@fluffy@p@miscbrains@ForbiddenDreamer Good honestly, I want to see less American news. If a dumbass on facebook can't share a link because of it? Lol, lmao. Now to just get our own news outlets to shut up about the US for once.
@p@fluffy@miscbrains@ForbiddenDreamer The part where they require all ESPs (Electronic Service Providers) to facilitate "authorized access to information" without telling anyone was a nice touch.
@p@realFapster@ForbiddenDreamer@miscbrains look at how fast "numerous privacy laws" [sic] are forgotten when convenient and remember. it's not the first time but this perfect of a smoking gun is rare. extra laugh that on paper this is all to protect journalists
@p@ForbiddenDreamer@miscbrains@realFapster of note, if gov dgaf about privacy *this fast* for mere journalists then is any privacy law preventing gov action for persons on lists?
> look at how fast "numerous privacy laws" [sic] are forgotten
Remember that NSF report where they told tech companies "just do the censorship and blame the government if people complain"? It's been on my mind a lot. It would be a stretch to apply it here, that does feel like :tinfoil: territory, but you know.
@p@fluffy@miscbrains@ForbiddenDreamer@graf CanCon is already a thing and has been for decades. Protectionism in media is required when sitting as the next-door neighbour to a media titan such as the US if you want to have any domestic industry. The government is already all up in our news business and is never going to leave. It may as well do something useful while it's there.
@Noraweed@ForbiddenDreamer@fluffy@graf@miscbrains Information protectionism is useless and misguidedand fake and retarded. Either Canadians want Canadian news, in which case the protectionism is unnecessary, or they don't, in which case the government is retarded.
The order seems a bit excessive in scope. It should have been limited to things the plaintiff's may be entitled to see, e.g. requests involving their articles, etc. Or does the court intend to hand the logs of every user to the plaintiff for review? Who's the judge? It also seems unduly burdensome in that it would cost a bit for labor and storage. They should seek an interlocutory appeal of the order.
@fluffy@ForbiddenDreamer@miscbrains@realFapster Oh, I wasn't giving them any credit; exactly the opposite. Now that they are a wing of the government, they stopped caring. It was privacy advocates waving around the "freedom of the press" flag.
This is true but the feds have made it clear through instances like Michael Hastings and Julian Assange what they will do to anyone that actually takes the journalism part of their job seriously.
@Deplorable_Degenerate@p@miscbrains@ForbiddenDreamer@realFapster if you read autobiographies of journalists, their life is not like what we imagine. you might do 1 investigative piece in your career and you are very heavily babysat lest you step on the toes of someone the newspapers need to stay in good graces with. it's a business that relies above all else on access. be it press conferences or dinner parties.
in my opinion, "hard-hitting investigative journalism" was just a trend for a short while. even watergate' deepthroat was a fed and that whole fiasco was a setup. it's grimmer than you imagine.
@fluffy@ForbiddenDreamer@miscbrains@realFapster I think it can't survive as an institution; the activity of finding out things that people want you not to tell anyone, that's a thing that will happen as long as shady people have any authority, and shady people are the normal case for people in positions of authority.
throughout history, whistle blowers have always sought asylum with powerful antagonists. either journalists were really strong enough to stand up to people of authority... or the institution was just a paper tiger all along
> perhaps we were a little naive to think that this is what they were doing in the first place.
The institution, yeah. Individuals and organizations are sometimes doing good work, but it would be a mistake to expect someone. Anything, absolutely anything that can be used as a shield will be used as a shield.
> either journalists were really strong enough to stand up to people of authority... or the institution was just a paper tiger all along
The rise of the "unimpeachable journalistic integrity" bullshit coincided with FDR/Bernays/WW2. Prior to that, newspapers would do shit like print fake news just to see who was copying them.
Anyone watching press coverage of something they were involved in figures this out pretty quickly. So you take that, you look at who the institutional press treats as an asshole and who they treat as decent, right: they rarely shit on prosecutors, for example.
@p@ForbiddenDreamer@miscbrains@realFapster right. according to an autobiography i read, the entire notion of trusted news was invented in the first half of the century. it was first of all for the purpose of fighting back against unions, but also more broadly because it was easier to sell product and influence if you built trust.
to be entirely frank, you have more accurate data about current events if you entirely ignore what the news says. so the situation is pretty grim.
about OP. it's a tough situation for openai above all else because their business model requires them to convince their customers it's okay for openai to train on their data. how are you going to explain to ACME CO that nobody is going to do industrial espionage and steal their trade secrets when you are required to keep a copy of them to hand off to journalists in a totally unrelated case.
> according to an autobiography i read, the entire notion of trusted news was invented in the first half of the century.
Whose autobiography? Probably interesting. But you can see it, you don't find mentions of it in older books, people just assume the newspapers are full of lies. Then you start seeing things like the Bernays talking about how to use the press, the feds fighting the press, the press all agreeing to keep FDR's polio quiet, the press closing ranks and pretending they're unimpeachable when McCarthy starts trying to clamp down on the red menace.
I quote Jefferson's remarks on the press every time this comes up, so, for some variety, here's :wtsherman:
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are."
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
> how are you going to explain to ACME CO that nobody is going to do industrial espionage and steal their trade secrets when you are required to keep a copy of them to hand off to journalists in a totally unrelated case.
Yeah, if we're lucky, this kills them, but I hate to hand the press a win.
> ask me again later and i'll look it up, i have the pdf. i am traveling now
:bigbosssalute:
> That jefferson quote is kino.
Those were both Sherman. Jefferson's is much more sarcastic and indirect, I thought I'd sent it to you, but I send it all the time, it's a June 14, 1807, letter to John Norvell:
> To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, "by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, &c., &c.; but no details can be relied on. I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false. > Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into 4 chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2d, Probabilities. 3d, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers, and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The 2d would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The 3d & 4th should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy.
Fun letter, right?
> if openai "wins" the ai race we are in for a very bad time.
Well, if they get enough market share; a race has a destination. The "AI race" is a thing Elon invented, it's not real.
@p@ForbiddenDreamer@miscbrains@realFapster >whose autobio a journalist of no renown. it was an article of about ten pages and covered his journalistic career, more of whistle blowing on the situation there than his own life.
ask me again later and i'll look it up, i have the pdf. i am traveling now
>But you can see it it is of personal interest to me to compile these. i have what i've found on my own, in my personal wiki, but if you could share everything you have i would be grateful. That jefferson quote is kino.
>with luck this kills them if openai "wins" the ai race we are in for a very bad time. these are the guys who were expecting all americans to have $200/mo subscriptions to chatgpt (cf. deepseek r1 stock crisis) which was, effectively, about a 1 million times margin.
A newsletter performs many valuable functions in a community. The subversion of the role of the press only follows social fragmentation and alienation. I'm sure that the news agency of [insert cult here] is working in the interests of the cult. If /we/ are to be blamed about something, it is about believing that we should be entitled to news promoting our interests without organizing with each other, while failing to notice how all social institutions got taken over.
It is unnatural for social organizations where citizen hold political power, it is natural for social organizations involving rulers and subjects. But I think that this state of subversion is the unnatural phenomenon for
> nowhere is it written that journos have an honor to uphold
They write that themselves; for my part, I'll believe it when I see it. But they use it as a moral shield, I think this shield should be ignored: most of them are reprehensible and on the take.
@p@fluffy@ForbiddenDreamer@miscbrains@realFapster Coincidentally, as I keep reading about pre and post-revolution France I keep seeing mentions how the press was a cesspit of propaganda, personal vendettas, completely made up or exaggerated rumors, bought support in politics and in the arts, and ideological warfare from the moment censorship was relaxed. lol people just don't like being told what to think, and nowhere is it written that journos have an honor to uphold
>A newsletter performs many valuable functions in a community. not a true statement. make a fair and even measurement of its value - instead of merely recalling only those moments you noticed it as useful - and you will be shocked at how quickly the "many valuable functions" are drowned out by useless or actively detrimental behaviors. and do have the decency to stay on topic, we are, in this thread, discussing the sort of press that reports on OpenAI and not something more similar to a group chat that says the neighbor on the corner has extra canned fruits.
>The subversion of the role of the press only follows social fragmentation and alienation. the assertion that the behaviors visible not only now but also at the time of Jefferson, Napoleon, and Plutarch, are somehow not ordinary but actually a subversion requires justification. consider, alternatively, that this is the natural state of affairs as resulting from an ordinary understanding of incentives
>If /we/ are to be blamed about something, it is about believing that we should be entitled to news promoting our interests without organizing with each other, while failing to notice how all social institutions got taken over. it is better that nobody is 'blamed'. such actions are annoying and useless, so let's omit them.
@p@ForbiddenDreamer@miscbrains@realFapster >The "AI race" is a thing Elon invented, it's not real. only if we mean quite different things with that. singularity institute types have been discussing artificial superintelligence for decades, and the concept of a race to it is not new. it certainly predates elon musk.
...if i think about it, maybe there is some pop culture term called ai race, and maybe it is different from "the first organization to develop singularity level intelligence". there may well be, and that pop culture term might well have been something popularized by elon. and if that's the case then it's not what i meant.
> singularity institute types have been discussing artificial superintelligence for decades,
Yeah, Jaron Lanier used to have some credibility in the press until news sites had enough bandwidth to start including pictures with their articles.
> it certainly predates elon musk.
I mean his whole "We can't let China get the AI before we do" thing, the thing people usually mean when they say "AI race" as opposed to "efforts to produce AGI". There's not really a race elsewhere; there is a hype bubble where OpenAI is touting the thing it's produced and other companies are trying to produce similar offerings, and the tech is just incremental advancements and nothing novel, but the hype is at the highest level since the 70s.
> "the first organization to develop singularity level intelligence"
AGI is overrated as a concept. There's no hype about making a vehicle that runs like a man but faster, we just make cars and then people drive them.
They provide: - News aggregation - collection - categorization - cataloguing - publication - Supportive Information gathering - News contextualization - Community synchronization and agenda setting
These hold true from a small newsletter to globe spanning news networks. And they are necessary for the well being of a community. It is their motives that makes them different from one another, and specifically whose interests they promote.
>do have the decency to stay on topic, we are, in this thread, discussing the sort of press that reports on OpenAI and not something more similar to a group chat that says the neighbor on the corner has extra canned fruits.
The OP was about AI output being logged which is presumably done at the request of online news publications. Which somehow invalidates the press as a whole. I am not talking about a group chat, but I am including a community newsletter. Don't play retarded at how a topic evolves throughout a conversation.
>are somehow not ordinary but actually a subversion requires justification.
Social degradation is indeed a very common phenomenon. Doesn't mean it is sustainable though. An alienated mass of slaves will consume whatever information their masters choose to feed them. Their masters still need private, high quality, news aggregation. I'd rather not call this the natural state of social existence.
>it is better that nobody is 'blamed'. We should be blamed for not realizing that those running the news were not working with our interests in mind. We should not be blamed for using news organizations. Here, I hope that clears things out.
Yeah, the thing about a community-driven newsletter is that (until the process gets co-opted by someone with an agenda) the news tends to all be relevant to the community driving it. People sending stuff in, feedback. Like the Fidonet newsletters, they're all archived, and you can see them being basically full of stuff relevant to BBS operators.
"When a monster and a demon fight I as a human can only hope they both kill each other" I forgot the anime and dont have my puter to search net, I tried but holy hell "smarphone" is such a cucked and broken tool. Even fedi clients are not very fun to use.
@Pi_rat@fluffy@miscbrains Khrushchev said that during WW2, people compared the Allied casualties to the Axis casualties to see who was winning, but Stalin added them together to see if he was winning.
> whatever organization comes out with superintelligence (putting aside if it is overrated or not, let's discuss the concept as 'the singulary' originally) first will definitely gain power
It's not a clean line that one organization is on one side of and another is on the other side of. 9m VPUs is not that different from 10m VPUs, and you don't get either place unless you already have all the money. If there actually is a clean line for it, then
> of course it is better for the code to be open sourced like the chinese do, but nobody is going to open source their magnum opus.
Individuals creating something absolutely will.
No organization is going to open their competitive advantage; Facebook dumps LLaMa to erode their competitors' advantages.
> you could make some estimate based off neurons possible in available compute power..
Too reductive. They're not simulating neurons, just sigmoids. A brain doesn't just run shit through sigmoids, it rewires the network in real-time, and the chemical properties of the myelin sheath, signaling proteins that just float around, all of these things; there are more neurons outside the brain than inside. We are not even close to simulating an entire human in isolation, let alone in an environment. You look at OpenWorm and they can predict C. elegans with 80% accuracy; it has a scant 1,000 cells in its body. You have bacteria in your gut that manipulate your nervous system and this makes a thought pop in your head, you want a cookie: it's a protein oozing out of a bacteria colony that binds to some receptor on your Vagus nerve, those bacteria digest glucose and have figured out how to make you crave glucose, and you think you're you and that you want a cookie, that this is an idea you had, and you have to think that way because it would be impossible to operate if you didn't consider yourself a cohesive whole but if someone is trying to simulate you then it can't be hand-waved. Then we get back down to the most complex organism we can actually simulate, and it's a microscopic worm. This is also completely writing off that Dunbar-number intelligence is an emergent property of at least two orders of magnitude more people than just one: it's not easy to dismiss collective intelligence as a phenomenon, and it's a thing that, unlike some undefined measure of equivalence between a human brain and a mechanical one, we actually have observed.
So, no, we're not anywhere close, and if a machine can be said to be intelligent with any technology we have or are likely to get within the century, it will not look anything like us. What is more likely and immediately achievable is a human using a machine, and more power gives the machine a better chance of being able to do more complex tasks, that's where we are, that's where we'll be unless something really weird happens. I'm not writing off a black swan, but hyping up one black swan makes you miss the others. Hamming lamented that this was counter to the AI hype and thus not popular with the press or the management or anyone, but the question of hard-AI is meaningless and what's more interesting is what a human can do with a machine.
> AGI on the other hand, well it's mostly an argument about the definition. for example, the most recent chatbots pass the turing test most of the time.
People say that. Most humans don't pass the Turing Test.
@p@ForbiddenDreamer@miscbrains@realFapster yeah that's more or less what i had guessed. it's definitely annoying that ordinary phrases are being co-opted by guys to the point where even you are confused. of course the argument could be made that it isn't /that/ different. whatever organization comes out with superintelligence (putting aside if it is overrated or not, let's discuss the concept as 'the singulary' originally) first will definitely gain power. well, how exactly that plays out the the domain of prophets and speculators, but we can be sure that openai would use it to make stacks of cash and suppress dissident opinions. of course it is better for the code to be open sourced like the chinese do, but nobody is going to open source their magnum opus.
>AGI is overrated it's hard to say either way. if it were me, I would think that it's for sure too boldto say overrated at this point. i'd need to be able to talk about how AGI will come into fruition, which we don't know. there is certainly a lot of hype. but even my own cursory understanding makes it very apparent that there is a possibility where the hype is too conservative. of course that is just a possibility.
well if it were me, and i wanted to predict if such things were overrated... you could make some estimate based off neurons possible in available compute power.. in terms of the mass of the earth. the possible power production given our industrial base, etc. and i think you could probably get some bound. maybe if you run those numbers it turns out that scifi gigabrains are impossible. of course, singularity types would argue that the singularity itself would create new sources of power and new types of chip designs.
anyway like you said, this kind of stuff is not some new idea. it's popular now to talk about because there is cool new tech coming out all the time (have you seen the latest gaussian splatting tech? check out chinese 4DV). but this stuff about ASI is very theoretical. AGI on the other hand, well it's mostly an argument about the definition. for example, the most recent chatbots pass the turing test most of the time.
>used to have some credibility in the press until news sites had enough bandwidth to start including pictures with their articles. a paragraph ranting angrily about the press
@laurel@ForbiddenDreamer@miscbrains@p@realFapster >>make a fair and even measurement >They provide: what were your measurements here? for example, what units are you measuring in and how do you know that the measurement is fair. i think that you are fundamentally misunderstanding scientific understanding. the point of learning is to gather more facts, and understanding is something like a gradient descent on the geography of known facts. as such, understanding only changes by introducing more facts. no amount of abstract nonsense changes it.
>but I am including a community newsletter. Don't play retarded you fundamentally misunderstand the entire purpose of the discussion i've been having. if you want to speak to someone about the merits of having a group chat for your rental building you can do that somewhere else, and to someone else, and not in my thread about the court order for OpenAI and about the fundamental incompatibilities between journalism and the incentives of running such a company. I am not being disingenuous (that is the word for "playing retarded" btw), but this is already for free because you assume good faith. you simply lack understanding and are reacting emotionally.
reading more... the rest of your post is incoherent nonsense. i won't reply again so save your response.
SHOULDN'T WE BE ABLE TO READ FIRST WITNESS ACCOUNTS OF THAT FUNCTION BEING PERFORMED IN THE MANY JOURNALS AND DIARIES FROM THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD ONWARD?
WHY IS IT THAT EVEN IN THE DAYS OF POWDERED WIGS THE MOST PROMINENT MENTIONS OF THE PRESS ARE COMPLAINTS ABOUT HOW IT INVARIABLY EXISTS IN ONE OF ONLY TWO HYPOSTASES: A SENSATIONALIST RAG THAT FUNDS ITSELF THROUGH PRINTING FALSEHOODS AND DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS OR AN INSTRUMENT OF POLITICAL PROPAGANDA FOR THE STATE OR A PARTY
AND THAT'S IT AT NO POINT BETWEEN THE GUTENBERG BIBLE AND 9/11 HAD JOURNALISM EVER HAD A PRO-SOCIAL FUNCTION THE OCCASIONAL BENEFITS OF INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM ARE SO RARE AS TO BE EFFECTIVELY ACCIDENTAL AND ALMOST ALWAYS A FUNCTION OF THE AUTHOR'S PERSONALITY, NOT THE INSTITUTION OF MASS MEDIA
JOURNALISM IS A MACHINE THAT EITHER TURNS LIES INTO MONEY TO FUND ITSELF, OR OPERATES AT A LOSS TO PROPAGATE THE FALSEHOODS ITS FINANCIERS WANT
>We are not even close to simulating an entire human in isolation when we are making horseless carriages, simulating the horse isn't the point.
>You weren't around when the hype crested, I think. It's been busy. I urge you to reassess the tech with a positive outlook. I think that you can benefit a lot from being optimistic here.
> when we are making horseless carriages, simulating the horse isn't the point.
That's what I was saying. The Turing Test doesn't mean anything.
> It's been busy.
This is an understandable thing.
> I urge you to reassess the tech with a positive outlook. I think that you can benefit a lot from being optimistic here.
I am optimistic, just not about the thing the hype train is optimistic about: that's what I'm trying to convey when I say that expectations about the black swan will give you tunnel-vision and you can miss the actual black swan. "Singularity as inevitable and the only way forward" seems fabulously unlikely.
Incidentally, that was covered in Hamming's lecture: he says that if you do not think you can build a real AI, you will miss a lot of things and end up behind the curve. Conversely, if you do, you'll over-invest and usually tank your career. So he didn't have an easy answer, but his advice was to keep both versions in mind. This is Doug McIlroy's boss, so he was overseeing a good chunk of Bell Labs; it is kind of amazing how much he had to say that remains relevant: he took an extremely long view and was right about the three decades after his death and is probably going to be right for the rest of the century.
@p@ForbiddenDreamer@miscbrains@realFapster is this the Hamming of Hamming Code fame? Of course he would have worked at bell labs. why was i born too late to work at bell labs
@ForbiddenDreamer@p@miscbrains@fluffy crazy how the inherently borderless internet pushes globalist governments to adopt isolationist laws in order to preserve control over the narrative. When China keeps its people on their side of the digital fence, I like to think of it as a safety measure for both sides (sheer quantity + separating cultural forces). When the EU and other Western entities do that, it reeks of tyranny.