I mean, my point still stands but if we want to talk about semantics - are you saying betamax wasn’t a giant?

Obviously they entered the vhs war and lost, but after that it was pretty much downhill for the rest of their company and products. They were a big name brand and crashed out by entering a war they ultimately lost. That’s all I’m tryin to get at

That’s a broad leap no? Giants rise and fall. Look at betamax, BlockBuster, Kodak, etc

There’s always going to be something better out there, as long as you’re still looking and leaving the old post. Chin up!

Gamblers fallacy exists, but yes ipv6 exists. Now getting archaic systems to use ipv6…

I’m kinda split on it tbh.

On one hand, we have a literal ip spacing crisis - mainly because there’s bajillions of arguably repetitive content among other non scrupulous stuff.

On the other hand, having a niche community has its pros.

Totally agree with your analogy of Walmart though - but then there’s also things like FediNet which basically let people use a standard framework to hve their niches.

It’ll be interesting to see what the future brings

I’ll let them clarify that then

The majority of comments here have been anti-Reddit altogether.

Plenty of people moved here to get away from supporting their platform and decisions to shit on devs.

Don’t know what you’re referring to…

No need to apologize, just sharing my sentiments

Ad + Reddit

Pass. Read the room

Would you mind sharing some good alternatives that aren’t proprietary junk?

I like your attitude!

I get what you mean, to live under a system which has requirements, means you must meet those requirements.

However to be stuck in that mindset perpetually is a sickness. There reaches a point where you must say, this is enough. I am comfortable and those that I’m responsible for/care for are provided for when they need it most. We have to stop ourselves and reassess our condition to determine if we’re straying too far. Human psychology has plenty of vulns and desensitization/growing too comfortable is most definitely one of them.

Greed is a pretty globally held sin in most religions and appears to be a fairly objective vice imo. I think too many people assign value to salary and materialistic things - but the reality is that you may be infinitely more valuable to a smaller company that pays you say 60k max than to a company that’d pay you 100k and could afford more but will just as soon lay you off because they think they can just buy more people. Value != only how much you make

Yeah but then you’d be a POS that nobody likes.

Money doesn’t buy real friends. Doesn’t buy real love. Doesn’t buy real happiness.

Just a bunch of hyper inflated plastic.

Jellyfin + rip your movies off the dvds. You can even invite your friends to watch your movies too.

You know. Like we used to be able to.

Fuck late stage capitalism and every greedy little pig out there. Hope you lose your mansions, cars, and expensive toys. You can live down here with the rest of us at a perfectly reasonable level.

Look man I’m an adult, you may talk to me like one

I used the term consumer when discussing things from a business sense, ie we’re talking about big businesses and implementations of technology. It’s also in part due to the environment I live in.

You’ve also dodged my whole counter point to bring up a new point you could argue.

I think we’re done with this convo tbh. You’re moving goal posts and trying to muddy water

I can see where you’re coming from - however I disagree on the premise that “the reality is that (rationale) the control of AI is in the hands of the mega corps”. AI has been a research topic not done solely by huge corps, but by researchers who publish these findings. There are several options out there right now for consumer grade AI where you download models yourself, and run them locally. (Jan, Pytorch, TensorFlow, Horovod, Ray, H2O.ai, stable-horde, etc many of which are from FAANG, but are still, nevertheless, open source and usable by anyone - i’ve used several to make my own AI models)

Consumers and researchers alike have an interest in making this tech available to all. Not just businesses. The grand majority of the difficulty in training AI is obtaining datasets large enough with enough orthogonal ‘features’ to ensure its efficacy is appropriate. Namely, this means that tasks like image generation, editing and recognition (huge for medical sector, including finding cancers and other problems), documentation creation (to your credit), speech recognition and translation (huge for the differently-abled community and for globe-trotters alike), and education (I read from huge public research data sets, public domain books and novels, etc) are still definitely feasible for consumer-grade usage and operation. There’s also some really neat usages like federated tensorflow and distributed tensorflow which allows for, perhaps obviously, distributed computation opening the door for stronger models, run by anyone who will serve it.

I just do not see the point in admitting total defeat/failure for AI because some of the asshole greedy little pigs in the world are also monetizing/misusing the technology. The cat is out of the bag in my opinion, the best (not only) option forward, is to bolster consumer-grade implementations, encouraging things like self-hosting, local operation/execution, and creating minimally viable guidelines to protect consumers from each other. Seatbelts. Brakes. Legal recourse for those who harm others with said technology.

I do not want that for anyone. AI is a tool that should be kept open to everyone, and trained with consent. But as soon as people argue that its only a tool that can harm, is where I’m drawing the line. That’s, in my opinion, when govts/ruling class/capitalists/etc start to put in BS “safeguards” to prevent the public from making using of the new power/tech.

I should have been more verbose and less reactionary/passive aggressive in conveying my message, its something I’m trying to work on, so I appreciate your cool-headed response here. I took the “you clearly don’t know what ludites are” as an insult to what I do or don’t know. I specifically was trying to draw attention to the notion that AI is solely harmful as being fallacious and ignorant to the full breadth of the tech. Just because something can cause harm, doesn’t mean we should scrap it. It just means we need to learn how it can harm, and how to treat that. Nothing more. I believe in consent, and I do not believe in the ruling minority/capitalist practices.

Again, it was an off the cuff response, I made a lot of presumptions about their views without ever having actually asking them to expand/clarify and that was ignorant of me. I will update/edit the comment to improve my statement.

I’m not sure I agree with your example - it’s more like giving the owners of the donation the ability to choose WHO they are donating to. That means choosing not to donate to companies that might take your food donation and sell it as damaged goods for example. I wouldn’t want my donation to be used that way. Thats how I see it anyway

A SO alternative cannot exist if a user who posted an answer owns it. That defeats the purpose of sharing your knowledge and answering questions as it would mean the person asking the question cannot use your answer.

Couldn’t these owners dictate how their creations are used? If you don’t own it, you don’t even get a say.

So does that mean anyone is allowed to use said content for whatever purposes they’d like? That’d include AI stuff too I think? Interesting twist there, hadn’t thought about it like this yet. Essentially posters would be agreeing to share that data/info publically. No different than someone learning how to code from looking at examples made by their professors or someone else doing the teaching/talking I suppose. Hmm.

Well I suppose in that case, protesting via removal is fine IMO. I think the constructive, next-step would be to create a site where you, the user, own what you post. Does Reddit claim ownership over posts? I wonder what lemmy’s “policies” are and if this would be a good grounds (here) to start building something better than what SO was doing.