p03locke

All I know is that Meta is probably here because everyone is bailing to Mastodon, especially journalists.

I wouldn't exactly say that everybody is bailing on Mastodon. I don't like the Twitter format, but a lot of people prefer that over a threaded set up like Reddit/Lemmy/Threads. Right now, the only other option is Twitter, and Musk is actively burning that to the ground.

I just wish Mastodon would stop catering to mobile people and give me browser width space that's not the size of a large potato.

Fuckin Fox News threw up an outpost, they’re all there, the userbase is ramping up past 8mil.

Right-wing assholes gonna asshole their way into the platform with the most corporate influence, while still pretending they are "rebelling" and "sticking it to the man". Fox News are the Kings of Astroturfing. Not surprising at all.

A code security audit is done. This will likely just be casual reviews by technical lemmy users. However, I will be reaching out to the Mozilla Foundation and Cure53 as they recently did an audit of Mastodon. If there is interest in an external audit of lemmy and the costs are affordable, I’ll look into crowdfunding this cost.

You don't need to pay money. You just need to listen to the recommendations already made by free tools.

Here, fix this shit first and then worry about a professional audit later.

Kegan may have been better off submitting a GitHub issue. And if issues haven't been open for these critical security flaws, you should, too.

I think the main issue of contention is just using copyrighted work to train generative AI without the author’s permission regardless.

You must define that in legal terms. This is a lawsuit, after all. It's not illegal to "just use" copyrighted work. The words "generative AI" are not in a federal or state bill anywhere in the US.

They can have an "issue of contention" all they want, but if they can't prove anything legally, they have nothing.

No, Bobby Tables is really not that creative at all. It is the most basic, entry-level exploit.

Why does "fair use" even fall into it? I'm not familiar with their specific license, but the general definition of copyright is:

A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time.

Nothing was copied, or distributed (in a form that anybody can consider "The Work"), or displayed, or performed. The only possible legal argument they have is adapting as a derivative work. And anybody who is familiar with how an LLM works knows that the form that results from reading in content is completely different from the source.

LLMs/LDMs are not taking in billions of books and putting them into a database. It is a very lossy process. Out of all of the billions of images trained from the Stable Diffusion database, the resulting model is 4 GBs. There is no universe where you can store billions of images into a mere 4 GBs. Stable Diffusion cannot and will not, pixel-by-pixel, reproduce a Van Gogh. It can make something that kind of looks like a Van Gogh, but styles are not copyrightable.

The same applies to an LLM like ChatGPT. It cannot reproduce entire books, or anywhere close to that. If you ask it to recreate Page 25 of Silverman's book, it can't do it. If it doesn't even contain a minor portion of the original material, it can't even be considered a derivative work.

They don't have a case. They have a lot of publicity and noise, but they will lose to inevitability.

I’m expecting FB to make some sort of proprietary fork of ActivityPub.

ActivityPub is based on a W3C standard. I found this license here, but I'm not sure if there is any protections against re-privatization.

It's Fortune. What do you expect? They all think in capitalism, and the very concept of OSS is alien in their mind.

I don’t know who would watch a whole 20 minute video on their phone though.

In some countries, a phone as a daily computer for everything is much more popular than actual computers.

Yeah, that sounds a lot like NPD.

You cite FDA claims ‘Aspartame is safe’ but show no research that supports this conclusion. Looking at the provided links I noticed things like “don’t feed to pregnant mothers because phenylalanine”, “methanol is a metabolite - nothing concerning there”, and ‘we plan on doing a systemic revaluation of aspartame as the research is over a decade old (the whole time with the biggest corporations in the world breathing down our necks)’ https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/corporate_publications/files/factsheetaspartame.pdf

I do? Which post do I claim anything? What links did I provide?

My whole point is that one flawed study with rats doesn't prove a damn thing, and is not enough to make a decision on.

I don't really care for 4K. The diminishing returns isn't worth it, and it's really turning into a bandwidth problem for the major players that offer it for free.

But, I can't get behind 480p. That shit is garbage resolution, especially on a TV or computer.