rank and file is only a small part of the article, though? way way more is about the reasons in revenue sources, “first they came for Anthropic”, and OpenAI’s opportunism. i don’t think any previous things like “gulf of america” have caused this kind of open-letter response

that’s for crossposts, which go across communities so they’re not a substitute for per-community megathreads, and of course it only works if the links are the same

note that this is NOT itsfoss.com but some AI-generated itsfoss.gitlab.io

so you can pay to support them, just like how goblin tools is on the app store

that is indeed in this very article. please read the last paragraphs

sauce?

i’d say the article shares your skepticism

the article mentions that:

The rallying behind Anthropic was tinged with opportunism. Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, said in a memo to employees this week that “we have long believed that A.I. should not be used for mass surveillance or autonomous lethal weapons,” which is the same stance as Anthropic’s.

But late Friday, after Mr. Trump had ordered federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s technology, OpenAI said it had reached its own agreement with the Pentagon to provide its A.I. for classified systems. OpenAI said it had found a way to put safeguards into its technologies that would somehow prevent the systems from being used in ways that it does not want them to be.

For many A.I. companies, government contracts are only one piece of an expanding pipeline of business. The $200 million contract that Anthropic had been negotiating with the Pentagon for A.I. use in classified systems, which precipitated the fight, would most likely be only a small percentage of the company’s revenue. Anthropic primarily sells A.I. software to other businesses and last year hit a monthly pace of $8 billion to $10 billion in annual revenue, Dr. Amodei said in December.

the problem with edge’s (allegedly) is not just it’s white-label, though. that would make it a VPN.

it’s like why some people prefer Windows LTSC I think: less breakage, more stability, less experimental features, enterprises that use these often want like privacy hardening for security or something so these distributions often have similar things, etc

i do not think there’s anything to worry about chinese laptops with us-designed chips lol. it’s a TSMC to the bottom

thank you!

https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/95614/do-ad-impressions-count-if-the-user-is-using-an-adblocker summarizes Google Ads’s documentation at https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/141811?hl=en (TL;DR: pay depends on whether a script/request attached to the ad element is performed).

It’s true that different adblockers do different things, but the most popular ones do block the requests too. One of the most popular arguments for adblocking is performance and bandwidth. If we only hid the ad from view without doing that, we would not get the performance and bandwidth savings that adblock brings. So, µBO blocks the requests.

You can confirm yourself whether the request is blocked by searching “ad” (or “doubleclick” specifically for DoubleClick Ads, which are the majority of Google Ads) in your browser DevTools’s “Network” tab. Compare when the adblocker is off vs. on; for me with µBO the majority of requests aren’t even attempted and disappear when their entire element is ad-blocked, and in these cases the pay script doesn’t load either. The screenshot above only shows some requests that were attempted and blocked.

Going down the rabbit hole, doesn’t that then also imply that people using assistive technologies like a screen reader for the visually impaired are actually stealing content?

No, screen readers would still read ads. Just having the screenreader move to the next element is the same as scrolling past the ad. The difference is that if the advertiser doesn’t give alt-text, the content can become nonsensical. But the advertiser still pays.

You can approximately check an ad’s text for a screenreader with Firefox DevTools’s “Inspect accessibility properties” feature.

as much as sneaking into a seat in a cinema without paying means you’re no longer involved in the deal. so yeah, you might have a point that you’re no longer involved in any deal, but i’d still call that piracy.

thing is with ads you can block, the advertiser is not paying if the ad is blocked.

i agree that taking a restroom break while an ad is showing is not piracy. that’s not blocking the ad, though.

you are involved in the deal, because advertisers pay by how many times the ad is displayed (or clicked). just like how you are involved in the deal between the distributor and cinema, because the pay depends on how many tickets you buy.

by “the act” I meant things that are more popularly understood as piracy. even if torrenting cracked Assassin’s Creed was legalized, I’d still call torrenting cracked video games piracy.

If one of the pirate parties succeeded in implementing their platform, I’d still call the act piracy there.

That makes the piracy a lot more ethical and probably something I support.

i mean if not targeted, how is it any more brainwashing than arguments online?

or maybe i’m just biased against being affected by it because i’ve got a really frugal family culture

but to the website’s wallet