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?

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.

In The Netherlands we actually use “hectometerpaaltjes”, which translates to hectometer-signs. They are numbered signs placed on regional roads and highways every 100 meters, which is a hectometer. Although not a direct use of measurement, the term hectometer still is in active use this way.

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.

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.

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

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.