The issue is what mechanism could be used to force Google to pay, but also prevents Google from saying “yeah, we just won’t provide any links to those sites at all”.

Are they going to force Google to index those sites against their will? If so, how? Even if they could, would you really want that? Will it be just as cool for Russia to force Google to index whatever it wants, too? Are they just going to take money from Google no matter what, and give it to the news sites, even if Google isn’t indexing them?

Sorry for the delayed response. I didn’t see a notification.

Google is pointing out that the news sites need google more than google needs the news sites.

This sort of thing happens every once in a while; some country’s news organizations think that google should have to pay them for the privilege of helping people find their sites. Google responds by blacklisting news sites from that country. The news sites suffer more than google does, and they reverse the decision.

The best we can hope for, under the circumstances, is that Roberts comes to deeply regret that decision, as Trump turns on him.

I don’t think you’ve fully realized what is going on. The message Trump is sending is “if you do my bidding, there will be no consequences”. The law is now a tool to protect those people Trump wants protected, and a weapon to hurt those Trump wants hurt.

Classic fascism. Buckle up.

I have a weak and high level grasp of how LLMs work, but what you say in this comment doesn’t seem correct. No one is really sure why LLMs sometimes make things up, and a corollary of that is that no one knows how difficult (up to impossible) it might be to fix it.

with easily accessible technology people don’t retain the skills that are supplemented by that technology.

Isn’t this the point of technology?

We don’t even know how they arrive at the output they arrive at, and it takes lengthy research just to find out how, say, an LLM picks the next word in an arbitrarily chosen sentence fragment. And that’s for the simpler models! (Like GPT-2)

That’s pretty crazy when you think about it.

So, I don’t think it’s fair to suggest they’re just “a new type of app”. I’m not sure what “revolutionary” really means but the technology behind the generative AI is certainly going to be applied elsewhere.

It’s anecdotal but I have found that the people who are “skeptical” (to use your word) about generative AI often turn out to be financially dependent on something that generative AI can do.

That it to say, they’re worried it will replace them at their job and so they very much want it to fail.

They’re unbanning them from a sitewide ban and then immediately banning them from the lemmyworld community.

In context of the admin post they responded to, it just seems like a logical suggestion (not demand). I don’t agree that the admins should hand over control, but I also don’t see how suggesting it warrants a ban.

There are worse, imo.

user @snake posted:

Did you ever consider ceding ownership of the instance to an entity with greater legal capabilities?

In the end, it will not make sense to try to keep this instance running if the owners are unable to provide adequate service to its users.

and was banned for:

reason: Go get your service somewhere else

Definitely not a great look.

Uh, @[email protected] … what’s up with the banning going on in this thread? I noticed on a.lemmy.org that someone was labeled “banned” and their comment was simply “Ight, I’m out”

The mod note was “Let us help you”.

There are more similarly weak (spiteful?) bans that certainly don’t seem to be at a standard for a ban. “Litterally 1984” was another one. Is that all it takes to be banned here?

Edit: Many (all?) the users I referenced as banned are now unbanned from the site, but now banned from this community.

Well, TIL a few things. Thanks.

I have to admit that I always thought she was agnostic, if not atheist, from that Pope stuff.

I idly wonder why a gay feminist would convert to Islam. Aren’t those things incompatible? Is this my ignorance showing? Are there sects of Islam that are more open minded, like there are sects of Christianity?

What does this mean? What rules are you referencing?

The whole point of ActivityPub is so this kind of thing can happen, isn’t it?

I think I see the problem. 99% of the site wasn’t dark. That reddark site was showing a hand curated list of subs that announced they were going dark, compared to the number of those subs that did go dark. The exact numbers are impossible to track down, but reddit claims they have “100k+” active communities. Less than 10% of reddit actually went dark, conservatively speaking.

Of course, all subs are not created equal, so just comparing sub numbers doesn’t tell the whole story, but even anecdotally, my sub list was mostly intact during the blackout.