Isn't this conversation, not publishing scientific hypotheses, theories and findings?
If so, it is customarily permissible to use rhetoric and sarcasm to more strongly emphasize a point. Or, to leave the conclusion as an exercise for the reader.
By intentionally hiding their position (and simultaneously acting as though it is completely obvious) the OP shuts down any useful conversation that might follow. Do they think Meta will sell the user's data? Do they think different people are in charge of different policies at Meta leading to actions that appear to be in conflict with each other? Do they think they will use this information to train AI models? Do they think they will use this information to serve Ads?
There are many interesting ways that the conversation could have been carried forward but there is no way to continue the conservation as the OP doesn't make it clear what they think.
The only thing I can say is: No I cannot figure it out, please tell me what you're trying to say here.
What’s the point in providing a rebuttal to these points (e.g. that Meta doesn’t actually sell data to anyone) if the OP can simply say “that’s not what I meant”?
They are taking a position that cannot be argued against or even discussed because they don’t make that position clear.
> providing a rebuttal to these points (e.g. that Meta doesn’t actually sell data to anyone)
So one of your suggestions of what the OP could mean was something you explicitly don’t think is true and would argue against? That sounds like a bad faith straw man set up.
Perhaps it’s just as well that the OP didn’t provide one specific reason to be nitpicked ad nauseam by an army of “well ackshually” missing the forest for the trees.
You could, as the HN guidelines suggest, argue in good faith and steel man. The distinction between “selling your data” and “profiting from your data” isn’t important for a high level discussion.
Can you truly not see through Meta’s intentions? There are entire published books, investigations, and whistleblowers to reference. Zuckerberg called people “dumb fucks” for trusting him with their data and has time and again proven to be a hypocrite who doesn’t care about anyone but himself.
I think they meant that Meta is offloading the cost (fines) of farming minor's data onto the operating systems. With an up-front cost of 2 billion dollars in lobbying, they can avoid paying 300m+ fees regularly.
Or, OP is not hiding their position and shutting down conversation — they are not imposing their position and are opening it up to discussion.
What prevents you from saying "Yes, and Xyz!!" and another poster "Yup, and Pdq, and Foo too!"
Or, maybe OP is just being a bit lazy, but again, it seems the context is conversation, not formal scientific inquiry where everything must be falsifiable?
If someone doesn't care enough to suck at something (in this case, video creation) then why should we bother consuming their output? We all have our own streams of mental diarrhea already, so there's no need to drink from the tsunami of polished turds.
We’re just replaying the CGI debate from the 2010s. It was popular to hate on CGI because it was obvious and bad and low quality and practical effects were better because of…
We learned two things from this debate:
1. What most people hated was actually just “bad CGI”. Good CGI went entirely unnoticed.
2. A generation of people were raised with CGI present in almost every form of professional media (i.e. not social media). They didn’t have a preference for practical effects because the content they consumed didn’t really use them.
I expect the same thing to happen here. I don’t think many people want to consume AI generated content exlusively (like Sora’s app attempted). However I expect AI generated content to continue to improve in quality until it’s used as a component in most media we consume. You and I will eventually stop noticing it and kids will be raised with it as normal and the anti-AI millennials/GenX crowd will age-out of relevance.
>This is a clear signal that generative video is deeply unpopular.
Or, it's a clear signal that AI video is too expensive as a consumer product and/or not quite yet at a quality bar that the average person finds acceptable.
I think someone could have looked at computer graphics and SFX circa the '80s and decided that they would always pale in comparison to practical effects. And yet..
It's an annoying trope, but this is the worst and most expensive (at this quality level) that these models will ever be.
I think it's inconclusive. All we can know is generative video + social AI slop feed is the incorrect business to be in at this exact moment in time while Claude is running away with the SWE market.
The owner of archive.is modifies contents of articles already so I hope you’re not actually depending on it as an archive. It’s a paywall escape hatch not an archive site.
You are attempting to perform a rhetorical sleight of hand here. You are well aware that linking to a Stack Exchange post and running WHOIS is not grounds for a DDoS as a measured response. In light of this fact, you attempt to portray it as “doxxing” to mislead people into thinking that someone’s identity or address was published against their will.
I encourage everyone to read the original article and make their own conclusion. Do not take this poster at their word.
>This is great. Journalists are impeding the preservation of the historical record by blocking archivist traffic while simultaneously manhunting those archivists who find ways around their authwalls.
You are deliberately misrepresenting the situation. The journalists who block archivist traffic are not in any way connected to the blogger who was attempting to investigate the creator of archive.is. You have portrayed them as related in an attempt to garner sympathy for the creator of archive.is.
Indeed. I am highly supportive of archive.is, but let's remember that he hijacked his own users to become a bot net. That should make all us hackers furious. Is a complete violation of trust. Our residential IPs were used to attack someone, meaning he put us all at risk for his own personal goals. It's disgusting behavior and he should be called out for it. But we should also realize he's offering an important and free service to us all. I support him, but this is not something we should just ignore. Trust is very important.
I didn't think I was going to side with the DDoS-er, but considering what happened with Aaron Schwartz, that blogger was trying to get them killed or put in a box forever.
Thanks for this. I didn’t know about the details, and there are probably mor... but this gyrovague person is clearly being a privileged trouble. Their “boringly straightforward curiosity” is an admittance of their shallow thinking. When you are pointed out that you’re hurting someone in some respect that you weren’t intentional about, you should stop, sit down, and reconsider everything in that respect.
You may end up deciding to continue inflicting harm, intentionally so this time---that is a perfectly valid course to take. But you cannot anymore remain unintentional about it.
> When you are pointed out that you’re hurting someone in some respect that you weren’t intentional about, you should stop, sit down, and reconsider everything in that respect.
> You may end up deciding to continue inflicting harm, intentionally so this time---that is a perfectly valid course to take. But you cannot anymore remain unintentional about it.
To be clear, are you talking about the harm of commanding a botnet (which includes you and me) to attack an investigative journalist for investigatively journaling?
It seems like a non-question, but I’ll bite: No. I’m talking about the harm the investigative journalist is doing to the anonymous operator of archive.today by compromising their anonymity and promoting this. You can’t “investigatively journal” to someone’s detriment and say “I was just doing my job ;)”. You can say “I was just curious” (which is “I was unaware” in disguise), but now you are pointed out and are aware, so you must just decide.
And the decision seems to be intentionally do the harm and be insincere about it. Personally, my primary annoyance is with the latter, that they are being insincere about it.
> You can’t “investigatively journal” to someone’s detriment and say “I was just doing my job ;)”.
That description seems to encompass most useful investigative journalism, so I'm not sure it is a useful distinction that an investigation is unpalatable to someone (usually the investigatee).
Suppose we ignore that for a moment, though: it does not justify attacking the investigative journalist, nor does it justify surreptitiously using my computer as part of a botnet to do so.
> it does not justify attacking the investigative journalist
1. Person A hits Person B.
2. Person B hits Person A in return.
Is it ok that Person B hit Person A? I don’t know. I don’t think so. People would unanimously agree, however, that Person A making the first hit makes Person B’s hit more understandable, and that Person A is relatively more to blame here.
So, yeah, I agree: the attack from archivist isn’t justified by the attack from the journalist. It is, however, made more understandable by it.
As for what counts as attack: I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call DDoS to a blog an “attack”. It’s more like a protest. And I think the users of the service would in general not mind taking part in that effortless protest against the actor that is being hostile against the service’s continued operation.
Sadly, it backlashed quite a bit, it appears. People took the words “DDoS” and “botnet” as something much more serious than what they actually entail in this situation, probably because they sound very obscure and vile.
>> it does not justify attacking the investigative journalist
> 1. Person A hits Person B.
> 2. Person B hits Person A in return.
> Is it ok that Person B hit Person A?
More like
1. Investigative journalist investigates interesting and valid story about widely-used website.
2. Person B running the website hits investigative journalist.
3. Person B also hits me and thousands of others by nonconsentually recruiting my computer into a botnet.
> I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call DDoS to a blog an “attack”.
I don't think so, so it sounds like between us two, there's no consensus either way. Law enforcement and the courts are more authoritative than both of us, though, and they don't think so, either.
> I think the users of the service would in general not mind taking part
Hi, user of the service here. I mind, and I think most users would mind their computer being recruited into a botnet that attacks journalists to settle personal vendettas, too.
> kinda the same technique Democrats want to use as well with their "pack the SCOTUS" campaigns. They want to shove a bunch more justices in there so they can get their way.
Did this take place? Or is it just a fear of a hypothetical?
Fear of packing the Supreme Court is a fear of something that the current parties have not done. There's an 1869 law that would have to be changed to pack it since that law sets the number of justices to nine. After that, they'd have to get their justices confirmed.
Well yes, but by republicans on Trumps behalf. Not allowing Obama to put a new judge forward in the last year of his term, and then allowing Trump to with even less time left in his term is just a chef's kiss of hypocrisy.
When people talk about packing the Supreme Court they're talking about adding justices so that one side (the one doing the nominating and appointing) gets a majority. It's not about filling vacancies (or blocking filling vacancies) to reach the current limit of nine justices.
Why would I read your book if you have not read your book?
Edit: I now understand what is going on here. This is an attempt to promote Zenflow. The GitHub account (https://github.com/amoilanen/) is Anton Moilanen who is an employee at Zencoder, the creators of Zenflow.
What was the point of first asking an LLM to expand prompt/"specs" into a book and then asking it to compress it back to a summary? Well, I'm glad you asked! To promote this Z*n tool, of course.
It was not the goal and I was posting in my personal capacity. I just used it together with Claude Code on my personal project. Because I work with it regularly it is natural that I used it.
I wanted to mention the tools I used including Claude Code. I hope it does not seem that I am here to promote Anthropic tools as well?
I just thought it appropriate to mention for the correct attribution, because the heavy lifting was done by the tools, not by me
It is your choice. I have read a good part of the book, also wrote a part of it and am in the process of finishing the review. The more reviews - the better. The book is officially in beta and this is fully transparent
The main goal of posting early was to gather feedback and peer review as soon as possible. I hope it can become a collaborative effort with external contributions.
The book is still a work in progress, and I have tried to be transparent about that. If you have specific concerns about the quality or suggestions for improvement, I would genuinely appreciate hearing them.
He's being dishonest. He's attempting to promote Zenflow (a tool created by his employer Zencoder). He's produced AI slop (that he has not even read!) as a vehicle to promote Zenflow and get it in front of eyeballs on HackerNews.
I am just referencing the tools I used (also Claude Code, by the way) because the bulk of the work was done by them.
This is what I was taught: work should be attributed correctly. If I would not mention the tools it would seem if the book was written entirely by me which is not the case.
This is a book which was started by me, I did use the AI tools I normally use in my daily routine on my personal projects. They are secondary in this post though.
I posted in my personal capacity and my employer is not aware or connected to this - the book is entirely mine.
It is not AI slop. A large part of its content was written originally by me 10 years ago.
But if it has offended anyone and I should not had posted the work which I have not fully yet reviewed myself, then sorry
Given how YouTube makes money from advertising, I suspect it's more profitable for them to keep the data to themselves and use it for targeting. I would not be surprised if they also share it with Adsense & other Alphabet entities (and presumably with government agencies), but am doubtful beyond that.
Not that this is much better than directly selling to third parties.
This sort of thing is common enough that simply establishing means, motive and opportunity are convincing to me. If not yet then soon. You can't hope for a smoking gun every time.
reply