tinsukE

Oh man, I totally get you. But as others said, it is relatively easy to publish apps on the Play Store.

And I honestly think that the fight is far from over. I think it only serves Google’s purpose to already admit defeat.

If not in the US (whom I believe to be highly interested in tracking down “rogue” app authors), then at least other jurisdictions might outlaw this anticompetitive behavior.

Rao’s low revenue word choice matters here. He said “exceeding $5 billion” and not “nearly $6 billion,” not “approaching $6 billion.”

In a filing where Anthropic was trying to impress a federal court with its commercial scale, Rao is expected to use the biggest number he can. “Exceeding $5 billion” tells you his real figure is much closer to $5 billion than to $6.

Look, I have a genAI aversion as much as anyone on this community. But…

Is that what was stated in a federal court arguably true? I think so. Trying to define what someone is “expected” to achieve with a statement and using that as some kind of proof? That’s too rich for my taste.

Why?

Google added that it doesn’t believe its own Gemini models were used, but still has “high confidence” an AI model was part of discovering the vulnerability and weaponizing an exploit.

No, really, why? If Google itself or their models didn’t discover the vulnerability, how would they know genAI was used on the discovery of the vulnerability and weaponization (interestingly, not “creation”) of an exploit?

The headline (as in AI replacing jobs) is as real as the CRAP (Computer Rendered Artificial Picture) it uses.

I think it might be very hard for AI-pilled leadership to back off from their claims and AI mandates and it would not help the hype that they might be banking on/profiting from.

Since they’re using (now expensive) genAI and productivity isn’t improving, because it almost never does, rhen they need to do something to appease stakeholders and offset the cost of using genAI, ofc.

That and keeping employee’s perception of power and self worth down, so they keep working their asses off in the hopes of not being the next in line.

For yt-dlp specifically, there is a stable backport that is fairly up-to-date: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/yt-dlp

It doesn’t yet have yesterday’s version, but the previous version was made available 3 days after it was released.

they will most likely know how to use it properly and ethically

I’d argue that ethical use is not possible:

• Models are trained on stolen/misappropriated/misused data
• Training involves psychologically harmful work from ghost workers
• Those services runs on infrastructure that no one wants around, and wastefully contributes to climate change/global warming

GrapheneOS isn’t happy about this: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116200110686604617

Well, that can be said for many things, and I disagree with some of their arguments, but I agree with moving the dependency to a different consortium of phone vendors is much of the same.

Some vendor–independent attestation would be much preferable.

Andreas Kling’s ladybird? Don’t wanna touch that with a 10ft pole.

https://hyperborea.org/reviews/software/ladybird-inclusivity/

You’ll own nothing. And be happier for it.

Is what corporations and the predatory class would have we believe.

Did you check the sample video?

It doesn’t look good. And these shorts are probably cherry picked:

https://youtu.be/p71Wp1FuqTw

https://archive.ph/I1p8D

The depiction isn’t so rosy for people against the use of AI. Yes, entry level jobs are reopening, but they’re looking for people with AI skills, that show initiative and comfort with it.

With a fine of ~$27 million, I think they’ll just pretend to be working on it, get the “good guys, complying with legislation and opening up the platform”, not do it (or at least, not in any satisfactory way), and pay the fine, if it gets applied.

Caco (Brazil)