That said, software in these regulated industries tends to be a bit of a disaster area. Mainly because embedded software pays so much less, the average skill level is lower and no amount of quality paperwork is going to completely stop systematic incompetence. (not that the paperwork itself is inherently a problem: even skilled engineers will make mistakes sometimes and the quality system does generally mean that you do reviews and catch them. But when neither your planners nor your implementers nor your reviewers understand that casting pointers around willy-nilly in C is undefined behaviour, it's not gonna save you).
I feel like for software it depends on the use case, not the technology. There a plenty of laws about software use cases such as data storage and privacy compliance etc.
>I suspect there are companies running ruthless bots scraping TBs of videos from YouTube.
certainly, but for Google, that bandwidth and compute is a drop in the bucket. at the scale Google operates, even if there were a hundred such bots (there aren't - few companies can afford to store exabytes of data), those wouldn't even register on the radar. of course, like the other social media oligarchs, Google wants to be the only entity with unrestricted access to their catalog of other people's content, but even that isn't their motivation here - "login to prove you're not a bot :^)" was ALWAYS going to happen, even without the AI bubble.
enshitiffication is unstoppable and irreversible, and Google is its prophet - what they don't kill, they turn to shit.
>I think AI-companies abusing the internet is why things are getting more constrained in general.
even before the AI bubble, every other fuckass blog with 0.5 daily visitors was behind Cloudflare, for the same reason those fuckass blogs are built with FOTM javascript frameworks - there's nowt so queer as webshits.
>every other fuckass blog with 0.5 daily visitors was behind Cloudflare
Lol, that's so true.
>Google wants to be the only entity with unrestricted access to their catalog of other people's content,
Yeah, data is money. Reddit are doing the same thing, but even more aggressively. You want API access? Pay an astronomical amount of money for it, that is other people's content. Reddit also hosts a much small amount of media relative to YT.
For YT, I'm not so sure the increase in traffic is a drop in the bucket for them. It can depend a lot on which videos are being fetched. Cheap storage is cheap only for storing a large amount of data, not doing an unusual amount of (random) access.
This is about private chats, which are not used for training and only stored for 30 days.
Also, you need to understand, that for huge corps like OpenAI, the lying on your ToS will do orders of magnitude more damage to your brand than what you would gain through training on <1% more user chats. So no, they are not lying when they say they don't train on private chats.
> Also, you need to understand, that for huge corps like OpenAI, the lying on your ToS will do orders of magnitude more damage to your brand than what you would gain
Is this true? I can’t recall anything like this (look at Ashley Madison which is alive and well)
I think it is hard to say because OpenAI is still heavily in development and working out their business model (and a reasonable complaint is that it is crazy to label them a massive success without seeing how they actually work when they need to make a profit).
But, all that aside, it seems that OpenAI is aiming to be bigger and more integrated into the day-to-day life of the average person than Ashley Madison, right?
Yeah I don’t get why more people don’t understand this - why would you think your conversation was private when it wasnt actually private. Have you not been paying attention.
> OpenAI had also shariah policed plenty of people for generating erotica.
That framing is retorically brilliant if you think about it. I will use that more. Chat Sharia Law for Chat Control. Mass Sharia Surveillance from flock etc.
stock Chrome logged into a Google account = definitely not a bot. here, click a few fire hydrants and come on in :^)
I sincerely wish all the folx at Google directly responsible for this particular user acquisition strategy to get every cancer available in California.
I would think that when you're viewing recaptcha on a site, if you have 3rd party cookies disabled the embedded recaptcha script won't have anyway of connecting you with your Google account, even if you're logged in. At least that's how disabling 3rd party cookies is supposed to work.
Of course, if you have 3rd party cookies disabled, Google would never link your recaptcha activity to your Google account.
They just link it to your IP address, browser, operating system, screen resolution, set of fonts, plugins, timezone, mouse movements, GPU, number of CPU cores, and of course the fact you've got third party cookies disabled.
Isn't Chrome shifting to blocking 3rd party cookies by default? If that's the new default than the default behavior would be that being logged into Google isn't used as a signal for recaptcha
There'd be no way to hide this. If 3rd party cookies are disabled it's trivial to observe if an embedded google.com iframe is sending my full google.com 1st party cookies in violation of the 3rd party cookie settings. There's no pinky promises involved, you can just check what it's sending with a MITM proxy.
I'm sure they're doing other sketchy things but wouldn't make sense to lie in such a blindingly obvious way. (I just tested it, and indeed, it works as expected)
people forget that even before LLMs, the Internet was already shit. a third was SEO slop by ESL thirdworlders, another third - a kulturkampf battlefield. looking for the good parts had never been easy.
given that there had never been a technological advancement that was successfully halted to preserve the jobs it threatened to make obsolete, don't you see the futility of complaining about it? even if there was widespread opposition to AI - and no, there isn't - the capital would disregard it. no ragtag team of quirky rebels are going to blow up this multi-trillion dollar death star.
> don't you see the futility of complaining about it?
I'm not complaining to stop this. I'm sure it won't be stopped. I'm explaining why some people who work for a living don't like this technology.
I'm honestly not sure why others do. It pretty much doesn't matter what work you do for a living. If this technology can replace a non-negligible part of the white collar workforce it will have negative consequences for you. You don't have to like that just because you can't stop it.
I wish the US would call their bluff and avenge those bullshit fines sevenfold with tariffs.
reply