> I'm sure all the HN comments have been a part of training dataset for many chatbots now.
Be that as it may, I don’t think “everyone does it” is an excuse. An absurdly high number of people throw trash on the floor. I actively pick it up or at a minimum don’t contribute to the problem.
The answer to “many companies are unethically gathering your data” is not “it’s OK for me to be unethical too”.
Completely agree; I was not justifying any company nor am I saying it is ethical. I'm just saying that regardless of your stance, the dataset has been utilized already.
It’s not, because that wasn’t the problem and would not have worked. For one, nothing indicates the $100K were extracted in one go, it looks like it was cumulative. For another, this malware isn’t directly sending coins, it’s just replacing addresses in your clipboard.
Right, but the confirmation prompt could say something like,
"You're sending $100k to L33tHaX0R, are you sure?"
But that would require the protocol to also have the ability to set friendly names against public addresses.
You could imagine a wallet that uses certificates for address validation. So a certificate owner could sign that they own a given public key. ( And sign with the public key to show they own that key too. )
Then that could go into a "verified recipients" section of the wallet, and you could set your wallet to only allow sending to verified recipients. ( Or only allow transactions over X to verified ).
>But that would require the protocol to also have the ability to set friendly names against public addresses.
Most crypto exchanges and merchants generate unique addresses per user/transaction, so this won't work. Moreover having a fixed address is bad for privacy because it makes it obvious what the recipient of a given transaction is.
I don’t see how this prevents malware from changing the destination just before the transaction heads out. If it can change addresses, then it can change them at any point in the process, even after human verification.
It doesn't stop specialized malware, but it stops clipjacking.
Security isn't an absolute. You're not trying to stop all vectors, you're just trying to put up a barrier to trip up by far the most common and easy method.
In a world where everyone leaves their doors open all day, you're asking "Why shut and lock your door when an attacker could just smash your windows?"
> But that would require the protocol to also have the ability to set friendly names against public addresses.
Which it doesn’t, and changing it to do so is not a realistic option. If we’re dreaming up anything, then my suggestion would instead be for no one to be dishonest, or for everyone’s basic needs to be met so they don’t need money and to speculate on cryptocurrencies. I’m pretty confident either of those would happen before every way people routinely get swindled off their cryptocurrencies is solved.
Yeah, I first thought of Hedy too. It doesn't keep them within the ecosystem but it does address the gradual intro problem and the localization problem.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean good things aren’t being made today. In fact, plenty of recent shows are better (in every regard: pacing, animation quality, character development, themes, …) than most popular stuff we had in the 90s. Heck, they’re better than many live action shows today. Quality from the 90s era looks skewed in the West, because we had such limited access that what even crossed the barrier were outliers in their own right.
YouTube channels like Mother’s Basement help picking out something to watch. Geoff has routinely pointed how he literally watches anime for a living and it’s still hard to watch everything worthy he finds.
Video titles are pretty self-explanatory. If you want to find something to watch, fire up one of “The BEST Anime of [season] [year]” and you’ll get plenty of recommendations, nicely ordered and with some short explanation of what it is about and why it’s noteworthy.
I disagree with the positive characterisation. Those videos have a funny schtick of exaggerating anime tropes for a couple of minutes and that’s the extent of it. The animation is all over the place, reactions, expressions, mouth movements often fail, style changes from frame to frame. It maybe kind of works precisely because it’s a short exaggerated parody and we have a high tolerance for flaws in comedy, but even then the seams are showing. Anything even remotely more substantive would no longer have worked.
I think it’s a successful creative endeavor for two reasons:
They took the weaknesses of last years style transfer models and used them as a style, working around and with it’s shortcomings and weaknesses. That is a far cry from “type a prompt and be do e with it”.
Secondly I think the story is fun and the whole thing is fun, not in a will smith eats spaghetti kind of why but fun as in an actually fun short film.
I think it shows that AI can be a tool that empowers creativity and creative work and more than a power point stock photo generator.
Fair. But I wouldn’t say that automatically translates to “absolute great” or that it “by all accounts be called art”. Though there is a high degree of subjectivity there, which why I simply said I disagree.
> actually fun short film
Sure, you like what you like, no judgement. But again, “it’s a short exaggerated parody and we have a high tolerance for flaws in comedy”. Had they tried to make something more substantial, serious, provocative, emotional, or slower paced, I believe they would’ve fallen flat.
> I think it shows that AI can be a tool that empowers creativity and creative work
Plenty of actual artist disagreed, though. And the backlash wasn’t just limited to the end product, but Corridor Crew’s attitude to it (creator intentions matter a lot when defining something as art) and lack of understanding on the very real and very negative impacts on the industry.
> So it makes me wonder if artists will just be downgraded to an "AI" training position, but it could be for the best as people can draw what they like instead and have that input feed into a model for training which doesn't sound too bad.
Doesn’t sound too bad? It sounds like the premise of a dystopian novel. Most artists would be profoundly unhappy making “art” to be fed to and deconstructed by a machine. You’re not creating art at that point, you’re simply another cog feeding the machine. “Art” is not drawing random pictures. And how, pray tell, will these artists survive? Who is going to be paying them to “draw whatever they like” to feed to models? And why would they employ more than two or three?
> it still make me wonder (…) if we're going to start losing challenging styles (…) and everything will start 'felling' the same.
It already does. There are outliers, sure, but the web is already inundated by shit images which nonetheless fool people. I bet scamming and spamming with fake images and creating fake content for monetisation is already a bigger market than people “genuinely” using the tools. And it will get worse.
> You’re not creating art at that point, you’re simply another cog feeding the machine.
That's the definition of commercial art, which is what most art is.
> “Art” is not drawing random pictures.
It's exactly what it is, if you're talking about people churning out art by volume for money. It's drawing whatever they get told to, in endless variations. Those are the people you're really talking about, because those are the ones whose livelihoods are being consumed by AI right now.
The kind of art you're thinking of, the art that isn't just "drawing random pictures", the art that the term "deconstruction" could even sensibly apply to - that art isn't in as much danger just yet. GenAI can't replicate human expression, because models aren't people. In time, they'll probably become so, but then art will still be art, and we'll have bigger issues to worry about.
> There are outliers, sure, but the web is already inundated by shit images which nonetheless fool people. I bet scamming and spamming with fake images and creating fake content for monetisation is already a bigger market than people “genuinely” using the tools. And it will get worse.
Now that is just marketing communications - advertising, sales, and associated fraud. GenAI is making everyone's lives worse by making the job of marketers easier. But that's not really the fault of AI, it's just the people who were already making everything shitty picking up new tools. It's not the AI that's malevolent here, it's the wielder.
I think it’d be a good idea to stop and think if this is healthy.
We know excessive use of social media, being glue to a screen, and having so little down time is bad for mental health. We also know LLMs are unreliable and their output requires verification.
And now we’re making projects for a machine to help us remain distracted while another machine is busy making up garbage. Wouldn’t that time be better spent exploring context so you at least have better information when reviewing the LLM output? Or even just staring out the window and letting thoughts settle?
I understand in the end it’s just a silly game (I assume; it requires logging in so I didn’t even try it) but there is a specific motivation behind it and I believe it’s worth thinking if it is positive. I’m also wondering about the decision of building something based on a show whose premise every episode is “Don’t Create the Torment Nexus” (though I haven’t watched that episode yet).
> A bunch of the early internet brands are being rebranded/relaunched
More like recycled to lend credence to dubious grifts and tangential services. Digg is all-in on AI; Napster is another paid music streaming service; Limewire is another file locker and an AI cryptocurrency¹; GeoCities I’m not aware of a revival.
> which is collectively is being branded as the nostalgic internet.
Nothing about that is nostalgic or remotely related to the old internet. The names are the same and some founders may have returned, but the values and technologies are entirely different.
¹ Whatever that even means in practice. Double-dip on a pile-on of grifts, can never have too many hyped technologies!
Besides GeoCities - the rest are being relaunched by SV VCs and PE groups.
Napster was acquired and relaunched in crypto a few years ago and just resold for $100M+ to a metaverse company immediately following a new raise at a $1B+ valuation.
So yeah it’s acquiring historic IP by VC/PE to resell to friends that are using someone else’s funds. Considering the .com boom and era of publicly traded big tech giving golden parachutes to friends (buying their companies and shutting them down) - it’s very nostalgic.
Napster is so old that I remember its DMCA-compliant reboot from 20 years ago. My college gave students free access to it, all the music was a DRM'd WMA file. Most people who used it also downloaded a DRM-removal program to be able to put it on shared drives and MP3 players.
> What benefit do they see in exchange for the effort in open sourcing things?
Goodwill and more people willing to try whatever they release next, rather than the current situation of “Oh, Google is releasing a new thing? Pass. They’ll just stop supporting it and I’ll be left in the cold anyway, so no bother even trying”.
Killing so many projects makes fewer people interested in trying whatever they release next, which means fewer users, which means a higher likelihood it’ll be abandoned. It’s a vicious cycle that could be stopped or even reversed if they open-sourced their abandoned stuff.
To be clear, I’m not necessarily advocating Google should do it or that it’s be a clear win with no downsides. Maybe the upside wouldn’t be worth it, but there is an upside.
My point has nothing to do with licensing, but longevity.
What non-technical users know is “Google released a project, I invested my time in it, they abandoned it, and I was left hanging. This has happened multiple times so I no longer want to try anything new they release”.
Had the projects been open-sourced, at least some of them would have been picked up by others and continued so non-technical users would know “Google released a project, I invested my time in it, they abandoned it, then someone continued it and I’m still using it to this day. I’m happy to try this new Google thing, because even if they abandon it I won’t be left in the cold”.
As a reminder, such a cookie would not require a cookie banner.
https://commission.europa.eu/resources/europa-web-guide/desi...
reply