“Wow, don’t take things so seriously!”

It’s just an appeal to authority. There are plenty of silent majorities that are real, but often the arguments that built those silent majorities are sound on their own and are much better to argue with, so there is no reason to point out a silent majority.

Like, not being a flat earther is a silent majority, because 99% of people don’t even think, talk or discuss such ideas, but you don’t need to rely on a silent majority to debunk it.

I gotcha, yeah then it’s probably better for them. As other people in the thread explained, it should save them from most crackers that just give up if the password isn’t cracked easily.

Word based passwords are (typically) not more secure, but they’re easier to remember than random text, which makes them more secure than the lesser alternative, but not more than the better alternative: just as long, but fully random text stored and generated by a password manager. You’re right that substituting text with numbers or symbols is bad, those are easily cracked. But fully random text with symbols and numbers is the best.

Why? Badly remembered passwords are often reused and written down, sometimes even on the computer itself, in emails, chat software, text files. And any password created by a person inherently will fall victim to shortcuts, as humans are often just not as creative as you might hope, there’s patterns. Common words might be used, too little words might be used. With a dictionary attack that checks common words, the entropy of such passwords can become drastically smaller to the point they can be cracked very quickly, and you have to be aware of that constantly when using words. Using uncommon words or more difficult words can prevent that, but that’s typically not what people do, when “password123” is the best they come up with otherwise.

A notebook at home would suffice, but it’s not great for the same reason as word based passwords. A password manager can create passwords that are guaranteed to be entropically complex passwords that can’t be cracked basically ever. There’s no guessing, no shortcuts to take, no human laziness to slip in and curse the password to easy cracking. And it does so uniquely for every login you have. That’s essentially unbeatable.

That’s in part because they see their future through the lens of them oppressing objective developments, so EVs and batteries will never happen in that fantasy. They took a liking to AI for example despite it being relatively new development purely because it helped them in that department. They will only embrace something if it’s ‘their’ idea, and they have a lot of shitty ideas.

While that’s true, it clearly worked and massive channels used it. So why is YouTube’s avoiding any responsibility and trying to kill it as quickly and silently as possible? Like, I get that sometimes you’ll have to drop support for things (even things you unofficially support), but there should be a phase out period during which people can either backup and re-upload videos with those captions to preserve them. They could and should honestly provide a heads up for that or even help them out.

Now they are literally decimating people’s hard work and on top of that pissing off actual partners. Not saying it will be successful, but cutting into people’s business like that is the kind of thing you can get sued over. So it doesn’t even make sense to take that risk from what we know.

I do sometimes, but I always try to recognize that this is EXACTLY how someone trying to bring you down wants you to feel. If basically nobody exists any more that practices and advertises a way that avoids the abuse, then the path will truly become dead until something radically changes. Until that moment, and not a moment later. And tricking you into apathy is just a very effective strategy to accelerate that.

I still remember getting into tech, and just constantly expanding my horizon with new tools and tutorials. Without those, I probably never would have gotten there, and would probably just have been like the rest. Knowing such people are out there looking for that spark, I want them to be able to find it too. Some things you must do without being able to know if it’s working or not.

EDIT: Typo

An important feature is that you can basically download (and thus, own) the music you pay for (in many formats too).

I think you might misunderstood what Bandcamp is aiming for here. They’re explicitly trying to still allow it when humans are using it (responsibly) as tools. This is essentially a ban on AI where no human is involved (or not involved enough), where the music produced is focused on quantity over quality (slop). That’s a fine and nuanced distinction for a music distribution platform in my opinion.

I doubt they would just blanket scan all music and ban that which they think is AI (aside from how that’s practically impossible). That’s the kind of thing a lazy big tech company would do. I wouldn’t be surprised if this will just end up being on a report basis, at the very least with human verification once steps like banning would be taken. Because otherwise it would be pretty disastrous for the reasons you mentioned, since it would ban legitimate artists. Not to mention the bar of “substantially AI” would need to be judged by someone.

Ah, no worries, none taken. Have a good one.

Not quite sure what you’re trying to say. The article literally says:

Bandcamp’s policy targets the latter end of that spectrum while leaving room for human artists who incorporate AI tools into a larger creative process.

Which is what I’m applauding and affirming, so I’m not sure what you’re saying I’m saying is opposite to what the article says.

Good on them on recognizing that slop is undesirable and shouldn’t be encouraged, but that a full ban also kills the nuance of creative freedom and creates painful situations where a single AI tool anywhere in the process (even indirectly) gets hard work rejected, which could hamper aspiring creatives in their ability to (start to) get their work out there and (start to) make a living when they are not what (most) people have issue with.

It’s kind of a chicken and the egg problem though, that happens on any new place, so it’s tough to sell them on that unless they already like what’s being talked about. I think it’s probably better to stick to the fundamentals of the fediverse and what makes it better than a centralized platform. In this phase of Lemmy’s popularity we need people that stick around and build communities, and they can only really be enticed to do that based on the merits of the platform.

For real, I had been using Bitwarden for a couple of years for free and it never once had to show an ad to ask me to buy it’s subscription. I just realized that it was giving me tons of value, and that prompted me to buy the (fairly priced) subscription. That’s a gold standard imo.

This is just OpenAI covering their ass by attempting to block the most egregious and obvious outputs in legal gray areas, something they’ve been doing for a while, hence why their AI models are known to be massively censored. I wouldn’t call that ‘hiding’. It’s kind of hard to hide it was trained on copyrighted material, since that’s common knowledge, really.