Check out some thread on AI and copyright. That oughta tell you how copyright people “think”, for lack of a better word. Not impossible to succeed with that kind of thing in Europe.

I doubt there’s anywhere where the phone book wasn’t digitized. In Germany, the requirement to publish your address + number was eventually dropped, though; maybe because the phone system was privatized.

Salman Rushdie: First time?

UK cabinet is mainly GenXers. I didn’t count exactly, but Boomers still seem to outnumber Millennials. Definitely on the way out, though.

I wouldn’t mind the politicians from 30 years ago, who stayed away from this bullshit.

If some laws in country A have a problem with this, then they should unplug their internet wires at the border, or at least learn how to use them and/or govern their citizens.

What used to be called The Great Firewall of China. It used to be unthinkable for western countries.

You can’t blame this on old people. This is only happening now that the Boomers are on the way out. People who sent international letters or made international phone calls were aware that they were communicating with a different country with different laws. I think we are seeing this now, because now we have people who experience the internet as something happening on their own phone, at their location.

It’s kinda funny how times change.

In Germany, it even used to be that your phone number, along with your name and address, was published in the phone book, by law. If you wanted to be delisted, you had to provide a valid reason, such as being stalked. Just because was not good enough. At every street corner was a phone booth with the phone book of your town with your name and address. At post offices, you could find phone books from other towns. (The phone system was run by the postal service, which was a government agency.)

Phone books were a bit of a plot point in Terminator. The terminator gets the list of Connors from the phone book and kills them in that order.

Feels more like the brick layer is equivalent to someone paid to create training data. You absolutely would want to ask the architects and engineers researching no ways in housing and construction. Not that they know what avenues of research will work out, but they do know the avenues of research.

No one expected the splash that LLMs or image diffusion models would make. Years later, the conversations on Lemmy are still dominated by people who still haven’t looked up how they work.

GPTs completely nuked the whole field of natural language processing (NLP). People had dedicated years of their lives to solving tiny aspects of that. That got solved practically over night. Sentiment analysis? Just ask the chatbot. Some of the seemingly smart people who make seemingly informed criticisms of LLMs are NLP guys, who just can’t let go of their old ideas.

Bubble is an econ term. Whether there is an AI bubble has a rather tenuous connection to the future of AI. Not much of a connection between the housing bubble and the future of housing either.

If Lemmy is supposed to be the place where the most tech savvy people in the interest congregate

Says who? Mostly feels more like sales than R&D here. Which kinda fits with these pitches.

I agree with everything. The thing is, I’ve been thinking about the psychology behind this lately.

When Fedi-Fans complain about Bluesky, it is usually based on the misunderstanding that it also is instance based. It really doesn’t seem to occur to many that things might be done differently. But I think it may go a little deeper.

A common complaint is that it’s too expensive to run a full relay. People want to self-host it all. They want to feel that they are in control and don’t need anyone. It’s not particularly rational but people do lots of silly things chasing that feeling. The rational start would be to move somewhere remote and grow your own food. Instead, people buy a pick-up truck or degoogle their phone.

That architecture also appeals to a more tribal mindset. An instance is “our” place. We just pull up the drawbridge when bad people come and we are safe here in “our” castle.

I think to some people that is more appealing than the more open design of atproto.

On Bluesky, there is all this waffle about some people trying to get someone banned. They might find such tribal architecture more appealing.

I’d argue that the modular design is a more radical approach to decentralization.

Yes, but only if you can do without instances. Instances seem to be important to many in the Fediverse.

I realize my title has little to do with the post

I was going to say. Red dwarf is the name of a ship and Constellation is a class of ship. In any case, you can’t have a proper ship without a bridge.

I expect phones in the EU are going to become a lot more locked down in the next 14 months, like Samsung is already showing. But also think that Google will try its best to make developing for Android easy to get into.

This is forced by EU regulations. I doubt Google would have introduced this on its own. If they wanted to do this, then why wait until forced?

That’s only if the apps distributed are unverified. Mind, the EU already requires app stores to document the identities of devs, but there are loopholes for Small enterprises. In 2027, manufacturers need to document the identities of their suppliers. There are still exceptions for non-profit open source projects, but that’s not what Google is. Surely, no one here wants Google to avoid regulations by investing in open source.

I’m sure the EU is not the only jurisdiction demanding this sort of thing, but I doubt Singapore has the pull needed to get Google to move.

Brussels effect. Imagine Google were to still allow unverified apps in the US. Most devs would still opt for verification so as not to lose the EU market. The proportion of malware is probably going to be higher among the few remaining unverified apps. Sooner or later, some US scam victims would sue Google for failing to protect them like it protects Europeans. Hard to refute.

Google is doing this to comply with EU regulations supposed to increase security. Now imagine that Google was pushing back against this instead of complying. As per usual, Lemmy would be up in arms against Google for failing to protect people’s data and not complying with our laws and culture. You’d be downvoted to oblivion for asked that question and called a corporate bootlicker.

I think these rules come from German legal culture, which traditionally has a strong need to control information exchange and processing.

With friends who work in AI, I can tell you not all are motivated by money alone, some of them actually do want the scary potential (aka Flock, etc) regulated and are working from Europe.

If they are in favor of the AI Act, they don’t know the AI Act. But never mind… I’m curious what your friends are working on (and if it has a future in the EU). That’s Flock.io, promising decentralization?

Yes, but that doesn’t seem sufficient for some. Conservatives certainly would like to remove trans people from the public completely. Aside: It’s foolish for trans people to copy these tactics, assuming this comes organically from the trans community. These people are certainly acting like the heels in some right-wing propaganda play.

Bluesky offers several ways in which users can remove unwanted content from their experience. Easiest is for users to block Singal; banning him from their personal part of the network. Blocklists can be shared easily. Users can also spin up their own moderation service.

I probably shouldn’t go into the details of what Bluesky can do on a technical level. Incidentally, that blog post contains errors.

In short: On a technical level, the Bluesky company can greatly reduce the visibility of someone. But they would likely run into legal problems if they used that on Singal. The EU regulates what can be done quite strictly. Maybe they could benefit from some industry friendly “loopholes”. I’d have to look that up.