I agree that with the current state of tools around LLMs, this is very unadvisable. But I think we can develop the right ones.

• We can have tools that can generate the context/info submitters need to understand what has been done, explain the choices they are making, discuss edge cases and so on. This includes taking screenshots as the submitter is using the app, testing period (require X amount of time of the submitter actually using their feature and smoothening out the experience)

• We can have tools at the repo level that can scan and analyze the effect. It can also isolate the different submitted features in order to allow others to toggle them or modify them if they’re not to their liking. Similarly, you can have lots of LLMs impersonate typical users and try the modifications to make sure they work. Putting humans in the loop at different appropriate times.

People are submitting LLM generated code they don’t understand right now. How do we protect repos? How do we welcome these contributions while lowering risk? I think with the right engineering effort, this can be done.

There are lots of people who could use them. Schools, libraries, poor people.

I get ya. I think there’s also a petulant sentiment of “you don’t want to play fair? Then fuck you, I won’t either”

No no, that is not what the headline says.

The headline says “you’re told that what you’re doing is buying by the people selling you the media, but that’s not what you’re actually doing. So, if they’re lying to you about what you’re buying, then pirating a different thing isn’t stealing the thing they are trying to sell you.”

It’s definitely tongue in cheek and has some hyperbole in it, but that is the gist of the statement.

Agreed, and to me the solution is not “let’s hope the companies play nice”, but rather to bring in anti-monopoly regulations, like Canada’s Bill C-56.

We need to force companies to add interoperability, transparency and fairness imho. Like the ongoing fight to force Apple to allow competing browsers in iOS. Or alternate app stores for Android and iOS.

Ah, that’s not my understanding of civil disobedience. I prefer this definition: “civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/)

I suppose the piracy aspect might not be public enough to count as civil disobedience though, unless you count as public the noticeable cumulative effects of all piracy.

There’s lots they can do…

• cheaper prices (by lowering the % of rent-seeking),
• better pay distribution for creators (Especially so that I pay to support the shows I watch rather than a global pool),
• interoperability (to allow new businesses which provide frontends to multiple streaming services),
• social (clipping and sharing, group watching, etc)
• more equal promotion of shows/movies (instead of based on royalty rates)

How much should they be paid for it? In a situation where the streaming services have a stranglehold on the market and are extracting a big amount in rent-seeking price vs actually paying the people who labored to create it, should we continue to pay and give in to their morally dubious tactics? In this lens, can piracy be considered a form of civil disobedience?

I’m not so sure that’s true. What if normalizing and removing friction from piracy gets to the point where the streaming services have to react by providing better services and better payouts?

Yeah, agreed and every person can only do so much. I like to think that it’s all the same fight, it’s the fight against the stranglehold that the rich have on the rest of us.

That’s the point, though. Spotify is rigged specifically so that they don’t have to pay small artists. Spotify splits the pot with the Big Three and everyone else can go fuck themselves. I would much rather my monthly payment go toward the artists I actually listen to. Instead, most of a monthly payment goes to the most played artists-- which Spotify rigs to be whoever nets them the most money (low royalty artists, high dividends for Spotify and the Big Three who are highly invested in it)

Cory Doctorow writes extensively about how it’s Spotify’s fault, as an extension of the common exploitation of musicians in the industry, in the excellent book Chokepoint Capitalism. Here’s a short summary of the Spotify argument by the author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ5z_KKeFqE

What Spotify does affects the entire music market. Why should you worry about their income? Because Spotify’s strategy makes it harder and harder for musicians to have the income to keep on making music. If you care about having music to listen to, you should care about this. Also, Spotify and music is just one example of the overall exploitation of workers. If you don’t stand for artists when it’s their livelihood at stake, why should anyone stand up for your rights when it’s your livelihood at stake?

I agree that the technologies did pan out, but I don’t think it’s an ignorant opinion.

I also feel blasé about the new battery articles because they tend to promise orders of magnitude changes rather than incremental change. Batteries did get much better, but it doesn’t really feel that way I suppose. Our experience of battery power hasn’t changed much.

It’s really about getting excited about the article or the tech, it takes so long to see its mild effects that there’s no real cashing out on the excitement, so it’s not very satisfying.

There’s lots of alternate, free and open source syncing solutions. I use syncthing myself.

But the main result is achieved anyway, right? The picture that the system tried to download did not make it into the training set.

I’m not sure, but OP specifies code being restricted to GPL, not all assets.