It is accurate to call it a parrot in the context of it essentially being used as ambiguated plagiarism machines to avoid paying workers.

Yes it is capable of that. Yes that word means something else in the actual field. But you need to understand people are talking about this technology as it's political relationships with power, and pretending prioritizing that form of analysis is well thats just people being uninformed about the REAL side and that's their fault is yourself missing the point. This isn't about pride and hurt feelings that a robot is doing something human do. It's about the fact it's a tool to undermine the entire value of the creative sector. And these big companies aren't calling it AI because it's an accurate descriptor. It could also be called a generative language model. They are calling it that because the common misunderstanding of the term is valuable to hype culture and VC investment. Like it or not, the average understanding of the term carries different weight than it does inside the field. And it turns the conversation into a pretty stupid one about sentience and humanity, as well as legitimizing the practice by trying to argue this is fundamentally unenforceable from the regulations we have on plagiarism, which it really isn't.

People who are trying to rebrand it aren't doing it because they misunderstand the technical usage of the word AI. They are arguing the terminology is playing into the goals of our (hopefully shared) political enemies, who are trying to bulldoze a technology that they think should get special privileges: by implying the technology is something it isn't. This is about optics and social power, and the term "AI" is contributing to further public misunderstand how it actually works, which is something we should oppose.

this has got to be trolling.

There really isn't much that can harm rich people that won't indirectly do splash damage on other people, just because their actions control so much of the economy that people depend on for survival.

huh interesting, so this is posted from Mastodon.

The solution would be importing a discoverbility algorithm of some kind, which the service seems very adverse to.

Normie is fine, NPC is where it gets cringe

God bless

couple more years and it will have taken longer to get winds than the entire rest of the series

How's the book?

What I am describing is how EEE would apply in this context. Decenterlized spaces can be undermined by corperate power becoming the supermajority, subsuming the spaces valuable users and content, and then walling themselves off causing people to abandon the original project as their social graph has once again become held hostage to the users the super instance has. We already see this here with Beehave de-federating from Lemmy.World. Lemmy.World holds most of the content, so losing access to that harms the smaller instance tremendously more than the largest instance, because they've become reliant on that content. Arguing that Meta is not a threat to the fedeverse for this reason is suggesting that decentralization isn't necesary, because they are 30 times larger than the entirety of mastodon combined. It will be centralization on a whole nother scale to anything we've seen so far here. And this is literally how EEE works to undermine decenterlized networks strengths, which rests in not having all the power held in one instances hands.

Your counterpoints make just as much sense in the other EEE spaces. Why didn't they just keep doing what they were doing after google walled them off? Why did they largely abandon the decenterlized space and follow the supermajority that held all the users they grew accustomed to interacting with?

The reality is that this is what happened. I can't really debate with you about this because it's not just prediction, this has an existing history of happening. I hope you're right, but the record so far does not agree with you.

Luckily, we’ll find out not too long from now. Hope you’re right.

Threads will immediately be the largest community in the fediverse when they join

As in several times bigger than everyone else combined. Most content and users will be from threads. this has consequences:

1. while it will draw more users into the fediverse, nearly all of them will join directly with threads
2. users who would have joined other instances will be parasited to threads as the safest best supported option
3. whatever threads does, other instances will be forced to copy or risk losing feature parity with the most important player in the space.
4. existing users will get accustomed to the content from threads as occupying the dominant super majority of content on the site.

Threads will essentially be the space, with all currently existing communities left as periphery. Which is very bad on it's own because the decentralized space is no longer decentralized, and in fact is in the hands of Meta.

Meta will eventually wall itself off because not having control of your users social graph is an unnecessary threat. And since they are the space, so they will lose very little by walling off. When they do wall off, the fediverse will have it's communities deeply intermingled with Meta, and when people lose most of their friends and content to meta walling themselves off - most are going to choose to relocate to meta.

Slowly growing the decentralized space organically is important to avoid this kind of stuff. If we allow someone to become the hyper-dominant instance, the principle of de-federation ceases to matter because they have so much controlling leverage over the users.

I do still think this is a good thing, but it's a complicated good thing that could do more damage. I am very worried that they aren't starting off federated. That also means their internal community norms will develop isolated from what fediverse has tried to establish.

1. while it will draw more users into the fediverse, nearly all of them will join directly with threads
2. users who would have joined other instances will be parasited to threads as the safest best supported option
3. whatever threads does, other instances will be forced to copy or risk losing feature parity with the most important player in the space.
4. existing users will get accustomed to the content from threads as occupying the dominant super majority of content on the site.

Threads will essentially be the space, with all currently existing communities left as periphery. Which is very bad on it's own because the decentralized space is no longer decentralized, and in fact is in the hands of Meta.

Meta will eventually wall itself off because not having control of your users social graph is an unnecessary threat. And since they are the space, so they will lose very little by walling off. When they do wall off, the fediverse will have it's communities deeply intermingled with Meta, and when people lose most of their friends and content to meta walling themselves off - most are going to choose to relocate to meta.

Slowly growing the decentralized space organically is important to avoid this kind of stuff. If we allow someone to become the hyper-dominant instance, the principle of de-federation ceases to matter because they have so much controlling leverage over the users.

I do still think this is a good thing, but it's a complicated good thing that could do more damage. I am very worried that they aren't starting off federated. That also means their internal community norms will develop isolated from what fediverse has tried to establish.