They showed their hand, they are either so dumb as a company to not understand their own products and how they are used. OR they want to nickle and dime so badly that they were willing to bankrupt a lot of the smallest people, even making those in school worried to even try to make those great smaller games that would let them start out deving. They can get stuffed.
I like the ideas the site proposes in principle (a lighter, more efficient tech/internet); however, I am not sure I agree with some of the solutions, such as returning to typewriters and paper-based solutions in a general office environment. Also, I am not sure image dithering lightens a website enough. (Full disclosure: I do like the aesthetic of the site itself.)
Instead of typewriters and paper, I would say that more cli-based and tui-based solutions would be more energy efficient. As well as replacing most monitors with e-ink displays for these solutions. I do agree with the deployment of minimal, static websites. However, instead of image dithering, focus on image formats optimized for the web (such as webp). Also, include images only when helpful or relevant; not just plastering a site with stock photos. I would contend that the images and videos included on most webpages are irrelevant, anyway.
The problem here is not me and you and our websites; its corporate websites (retail, news, social media.). With all of the tracking, javascript, inline ads, popup ads, video ads, spam emails, etc that they deploy, the web has become bloated. They deploy whatever they can to get us to click. Until we, as content consumers, actively choose to avoid these sites, their behavior will never change.
Unfortunately I don’t believe artists have any current legal recourse for this and, honestly, I’m not sure they require one.
Legal Eagle has a great review of common legal questions with court judgements on some. The bullet points are that an artist’s style isn’t protected by copyright and training and AI on an artist’s work can be considered fair use.
Asking an AI to draw art that looks like it was done by Greg Rutkowski is no different than asking a human artist to do the same thing. The human artist would look at Rutkowski’s works and do their best to copy the style of it. As long as the artist doesn’t recreate an identical looking piece, it’s not copyright infringement.
If artists could copyright their style it would stifle creativity. Same thing if artists could prevent their work from being used as instructional or reference materials.
My experience with Copilot is that it behaves like a mirror of website contents. It's significantly "dumber" ChatGPT Pro with v4, which does process the contents before throwing it onto the user's face.
hmm kinda like offering promo pricing for internet/cable/streaming but the added “based off other subscriptions” seems new. I do wish prices were fixed to some sort of stable underlying value (materials+labour+transport+some reasonable profit margin).
technology
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.