Ads don't have to be the primary deciding factor but it does make the rest of the process in the sales pipeline easy.
Whether we realize or not subconsciously our minds will associate the product and ad. When that association is reinforced by the salesman, a strategic placement on the shelf, or discount offers it is easier to convert it to sale.
Laws do consider scale and we can see that in everyday law.
4 friends walk together, it's just normal. 400 "friends" walking can and will be treated differently.
Moving around with a couple of bills is treated differently from carrying huge bundles of cash.
Those laws or exceptions were probably added later as a reaction to abuse of existing laws.
The problem with AI/scraping is that we can't afford to be reactionary because it may be too late by the time we realize what has happened and change the law.
It will be too late because governments and judiciary have been largely about maintaining the status quo and minimizing disruption when it comes to big tech related cases even when they have been found guilty of wrongdoings. We already see the too big to fail vibes with AI.
Laws are typically implicitly considerate of scale. Very rarely are they explicitly considerate of scale.
To wit, sharing music digitally, Google scanning books, or Uber/Lyft providing unlicensed taxi services.
It's pretty rare that laws consider what should happen if it were suddenly possible to 10x or 100x preexisting throughput.
And specifically where laws balance multiple, often-opposed, stakeholders' interests, that change can drastically upset the previously negotiated compromise.
Which is why piracy at scale, before it's banned, tends to be a successful foundation for many businesses.
Webpages used to have meta keyword tags until spammers hijacked them for irrelevant keywords.
I think browsers can play a part in building a local search index for URLs based on those keywords the page declares and cross verify/accept only those that are in prominently visible content, or may be delegate to an external engine(like LLMs) via an extension etc. This is particularly useful for cases where full text indexing is not feasible or desirable.
I doubt Google will ever add such feature in chrome though.
Meta keyword tags have always sucked even without malice. Because they're invisible, authors frequently forget to update them, copying <head> boilerplate between documents.
When designing a standard like this you need to apply systems thinking.
The poor data quality is a problem for anyone who wants to use the tags, which has seen everyone almost universally reaching for other solutions. Search engines have preferred anchor tags, bookmarking solutions have applied user tagging.
With keyword tags it's been a vicious circle of poor data quality and neglect since day one. Even in documents from the early 1990s when people were really trying, the data quality is inconsistent at best.
Did irrelevant keywords ever work for the spammer? You could add "naked" as a keyword because it had a lot of searches compared to "compiler". Now what happened to those looking for naked cats when they got to your website about code compilation. It's not like they would stop and think "oohh I'll look at this instead"
On the flip side, its important to know just how much we would be sacrificing if big frontier gets their way in convincing the courts that distillation is a bad thing
Like this scene from Pirates of Silicon Valley between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBri-xgYvHQ Bill was saying that Steve was stealing from Xerox so it's okay if Bill stole from Xerox first.
I don't think anybody's denying that small models are doing distillation, the issue at hand is frontier lab vs frontier lab when it comes to big models.
The only thing they're going to try to do is ban Chinese models, and that's not going to fly outside the US, so Americans are going be the only losers.
You'd be shocked at some of the punishments handed out from various empires over history for offences as minor as stealing an apple. Whether they can claim the moral high ground is not question of ethics but a question of power.
A microwave just cooks your input ingredients and if you use non microwave safe containers or food that is not suitable for it, you get edible but hazardous food.
Garbage in, Garbage out. There are minimum expectations on user like ability to source proper materials, use them correctly and an ability to verify/check the result for problems. More important if it's something you want to eat or ride!
> is one that will very likely need to be walked back at some point in the future for tech products
No doubt, but that future is when companies have figured out proper fit for AI in their product context and preferably with local AI models.
It should not be with the current slap AI anywhere and everywhere approach that uploads and trains on all available user data, which is what everyone is opposed to.
Its like companies handing over race cars to delivery drivers and telling them to drive responsibly but unofficially tell them that they expect reduced delivery times due to faster cars.
Do you think the average rate of accidents will stay the same ?
Weren't there multiple microcosms along similar lines in the US with "30 minutes or less" pizza and _[gestures vaguely in the direction of Jimmy Johns]_ ...
I've seen a variation of this where random engineers are pulled into production incident calls and engineers are not expected to be familiar with the system.
They were asked to "just use AI" and understand the component, triage the issue, build a fix etc. The engineer was forced to choose between accepting a potentially mediocre fix AI has suggested or risk being coming across as an incompetent resource who doesn't know how to leverage AI.
You can guess what the engineer chose. The fix wasn't bad but it was suboptimal for some edge cases. We had to later revise it. Have enough of these situations, engineers will eventually definitely give up understanding the system in detail.
A Mac mini base model comes with 256G. It is manageable but barely unless used with an external disk.
22.8G as quoted in the article is about 10% of the available space and it is something that cannot be offloaded to external disk.
Many people including myself are going to be furious when their Mac is upgraded.
reply