I don't read this as him saying it will become factory work... He is saying that the work flows will change, like lean changed factory work. This seems like a misinterpretation of the interview?
Yes! The delightful reason why this configuration can repeat within itself is that this Game of Life pattern is a machine with the rules of Game of Life built into it. It's calculating and displaying the game step-by-step. If you watch the machinery you can see the "data" flying around between cells and then the cells turning on and off.
This pattern isn't unique – you could certainly come up with infinitely many more machines in Game of Life that do the same thing. But yes, most Game of Life patterns aren't fractal like this.
There is a growing body of evidence that high levels of engagement with social media is linked with an increase in risks for multiple types of psychological ailments.
Singling out Facebook is a tad unfair and causality still needs proving, but I don't think it can be called either hyperbolic or unsupported.
That's certainly not true. Interoperability for basic features such as text, photos, videos, posts and comments doesn't mean apps are not free to add more features. Also, having an extendable framework will easily account for this
some form of interoperability is already happening for some of those data types (or at least starting with portability). See the Data Transfer Initiative (dti.org)
The issue is that forced interoperability will lead to platforms creating an interoperable (and less fully-featured) version of their app to suit the regulations.
I do think that interop is important, but I think it is a harder problem than most people think.
I doubt it, since the Warhol work here has strong similarities to another one, while text-to-image models only directly reproduce existing art when something occurs as multiple (close) duplicates in the training data. Which can be quite easily avoided, like using a vector database to filter for similar items before training.
More like, this ruling is irrelevant in the age of AI. I can take your photo, change the perspective, angle, exposure, etc, and now you'd be hard pressed to prove that I started with your photo. It's just 'transformation', but it's not simple transformation in a way you could prove a connection.
I'm not going to see their ad anyway, and if I did and knew it was targeted, I'd be more likely to find somewhere else to shop. What did we have before targeting existed?
- I thought unobtrusive keyword-based ads in Google searches were okay, when they didn't fill the results page.
- I think context-sensitive ads are fantastic. People reading a boat-building site see ads for boat-building or other related products/services. I would click on these ads.
- Word of mouth, vetted reviews, brand loyalty...all valid, rights-preserving approaches.
Since the lore is that targeting gets higher click-through rates, maybe small businesses could pay a little less for the less skeezy alternatives. Targeted advertising is forever linked in my mind to Zuckerberg's "dumb fucks" email. Facebook/Meta is the biggest offender in this space, and I'm happy to watch it die in a fire.
Literally none of your solutions work for small businesses, as they cannot win the auctions for limited adspace in a world where targeting doesn't exist, and word of mouth only really works for an extremely tiny fraction of small businesses.
Your solution would decimate the millions of small businesses that rely on targeted advertising to get consumers.
Small businesses don't win many advertising auctions anyway. Big brands win, or cheap knockoff brands on Amazon, or Amazon itself (not a small business).
reply