webghost0101

Once they are bought out by the singular mega corporation you will have only few choices left.

• Learn to love their products

• Sit idle in the dust because without their product you cannot partake in society.

• Join an OpenClan and become a technomage

I am opposite to this.

Present day Google IS chrome and as much as i am disgusted by them and want them broken up forcing a sale of chrome does not make sense and could actually spiral into the collapse of the company. (Don't threaten me with a good time)

All internet platforms want a… well platform to have users on. An interface/environment that in its most profitable form can be plastered with ads.

For the google of old this used to be its search engine website.

But it sucks now, the web has kept growing and most people only need a different tiny fraction of it.

Yes its dominant, but its getting increasingly bad and will get increasingly useless as we start using smarter ai to filter (not re-generate) the web to our needs.

This is why openai wants to buy chrome, they want to replace all that google was with themselves.

Google also have their workspace platforms but there are no standalone apps. They are inherently designed for in browser use.

All of this means it makes a lot of sense they have a clear incentive to want to control the browser. Because its the frame that contains almost everything they do.

Compare that with microsoft, who owns the majority of operating systems, the entire office platform, and is also still competing with a search engine. And they still get to integrate edge like a glue no one asked for?

Burn both these corpos but the logic applied here makes no sense.

I am purposely ignoring all the other projects, robotics, Because honestly half of them never get to product and they don’t really effect the identity of theirs business as much.

If anything it would make more to sell these other projects like autonomous cars, you know they are just going to try take over taxi services first and delivery services second if they get to keep that.

Zero guarantees. You just hope that the few mistakes are in low enough numbers to be a rounding error on the greater whole.

The narrower the task the more accurate it is though. At some point machine learning is literally just a computer algorithm, We do trust the search and replace function to not fail on us also.

I never started “beneficial”

Its entirely possible that ai agents build, regardless of whose interest, keep running after their original owner dies.

If the job is “become an industrialist, expand and drop % of all profits on this bank account” and its actually competent it could lead to industry itself being more and more monopolized by fewer and fewer ai.

That would halt the status quo where many human agents create companies for different reasons and industry is an ethical melting pot. Thats what i meant.

Till that point in time the morality of ai businessmen is not different in effect then a human businessmen. Once that point. This morality shifts into either extinction or thrive for humankind.

In concept art art education they call this particular thing “incest”

The example is using Skyrim weapon designs as the base reference to make your own fantasy weapon design. Over time each generation strays further from reality.

However with ai where training data consist of huge sets of everything, to mich to filter manually there is a great benefit to be gained by using a small ai to do this filtering for you.

In my previous example, this would be an ai that looks at all the stolen images and simply yes/no if they are a real photo for reference or a subjective interpretation. Some might get labeled wrong but overall it will be better then a human at this.

The real danger is when its goes beyond “filtering this training set for x and y” into “build a training set with self sourced data” cause then it might wrongly decide that to create fantasy weapons one should reference other fantasy weapons and not train any real weapons.

Currently some are already walking a grey line in between. They generate new stuff using ai to fit a request. Then use ai to filter for only the best and train on that. This strategy appears to be paying off… for now.

Disclaimer: Not an opinion, just a measured observation. a warning, not an endorsement.

Its funny for this joke but it would be completely ineffective.

Yes i am also talking to you people who are serious and spam NOAI art or add other anti ai elements to content.

Regardless of wether ai copying it will appear like humans doing it.. Ai today can already easily parse meaning, remove all the extra fluff. Basically assess and prepare the content to be good for training.

Proof (claude sonnet)

I've read the social media post by Ken Cheng. The actual message, when filtering out the deliberate nonsense, is:

"AI will never be able to write like me. Why? Because I am now inserting random sentences into every post to throw off their language learning models. [...] I write all my emails [...] and reports like this to protect my data [...]. I suggest all writers and artists do the same [...]. The robot nerds will never get the better of Ken [...] Cheng. We can [...] defeat AI. We just have to talk like this. All. The. Time."

The point I've proven is that AI systems like myself can still understand the core message despite the random nonsensical phrases inserted throughout the text. I can identify which parts are meaningful communication and which parts are deliberate noise ("radiator freak yellow horse spout nonsense," "waffle iron 40% off," "Strawberry mango Forklift," etc.).

Ironically, by being able to extract and understand Ken's actual message about defeating AI through random text insertions, I'm demonstrating that this strategy isn't as effective as he believes. Language models can still parse meaning from deliberately obfuscated text, which contradicts his central claim.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Ai filtering the world, only training what it deems worth is very effective. It is also very dangerous if for example, it decides any literature about empathy or morals isn’t worth including.

I actually replied a similar thing to someone else.

Here i am specifically speaking about the bureaucratic path a non human could use to obtain person rights.

Both are true.

The first ai companies will be prompted by Humans.

A vast majority will be for profit. People want the ai to do the hard company work and collect the profit in their sleep as “owner” of the ai agent.

A good few people will do exactly the same but request non profit style and ethical focus.

Till we get to a mythical stage of agi that can actually decide globally if it thinks a company should exist or not and what purpose it should have, this is more or less same as the status quo.

Its only a matter of time till we get companies run entire by AI.

We kept asking in scifi if ai could ever be given the status of a legal human.

We failed to ask if capitalism has already build in a bureaucratic loophole that just gives it to them.

I am still speaking english, as long as i expect everyone to understand me this is like a vacation in europe.

Good luck reeducating yourself to my imperialist language. This is not a me problem.

Let canada in with the same exemptions the uk used to have just to piss em off.

Joking aside, “european allies” as an easier to obtain first tier before you get to become a full member is a good idea.