No, as per the article, their argumentation is that they are not web crawlers generating an index, they are user-action-triggered agents working live for the user.

Why did you link an image instead of the video?

for example, “have seen revenues jump from zero to $20 million in a year,” he said. “It’s because they pick one pain point, execute well, and partner smartly with companies who use their tools,” he added.

Sounds like they were able to sell their AI services. That doesn’t really measure AI success, only product market success.

Celebrating a revenue jump from zero, presumably because they did not exist before, is… quite surprising. It’s not like they became more efficient thanks to AI.

I’m confused by the article suddenly changing to seemingly other semi-related topics and pieces.

I was gifted crypto from two crypto projects for my (crypto-unrelated) open source work. It was a baffling hassle to pay out. Over multiple conversions and significant gas fees and waiting for hours for a transaction and having to juggle wallets and exchange platform service… yeah. From my experience, cryptocurrencies are not feasible for normal, regular payments.

There’s no better payment infrastructure for USDT than for €. It adds additional concerns and technical complexities.

DNS is a listing of address resolution. Ignoring/Dropping records is not modifying existing entries/mappings. That’s a different thing in my eyes.

If the ruling were to declare published content must not be modified, I think there’s multiple levels to it too, and it may dictate to any degree between them.

1. Interpretative tools (like a screen reader would be, or forced high contrast mode), which may be classified accessibility too
2. CSS hacks that change display style but not what is shown (for example forcing a dark mode, reduced spacing, or bigger font sizes)
3. CSS hacks or ad blockers that modify or hide content (block ads that would otherwise be rendered)

The biggest danger for a “copyright violation” would be the last point. Given that styling is part of the website though, “injection with intent to modify” may very well be part of it too, though.

It certainly would go directly against the open web with all of its advantages.

/edit: Comment by manxu, who read the ruling, is a lot less alarming.

Perplexity argues that a platform’s inability to differentiate between helpful AI assistants and harmful bots causes misclassification of legitimate web traffic.

So, I assume Perplexity uses appropriate identifiable user-agent headers, to allow hosters to decide whether to serve them one way or another?

I’m working in a small software development company. We’re exploring AI. It’s not being pushed without foundation.

There’s no need to commit when you don’t even know what you’re committing to, disregarding cost and risk. It just doesn’t make sense. We should expect better from CEOs than emotionally following a fear of missing out without a reasonable assessment.

I’ve never seen anyone hate on forgejo.

and it has fewer large fluctuations now, it seems.

106 to 76 to 120 in the last four months is not large fluctuation? 30 % variance is quite high to me.

But what we find is that it’s not just that this content spreads; it also shapes the network structures that are formed. So there’s feedback between the effective emotional action of choosing to retweet something and the network structure that emerges. And then in turn, you have a network structure that feeds back what content you see, resulting in a toxic network. The definition of an online social network is that you have this kind of posting, reposting, and following dynamics. It’s quite fundamental to it. That alone seems to be enough to drive these negative outcomes.

Trying to grasp it in my own words;

Because social networks are about interactions and networks (follows, communities, topics, instances), they inherently human nature establish toxic networks.

Even when not showing content through engagement-based hot or active metrics, interactions will push towards networking effects of central players/influencers and filter and trigger bubbles.

If there were no voting, no followable accounts or communities, it would not be a social network anymore (by their definition).

The linked article also includes an interview. At least in this case, it’s not only a rephrasing of the paper or paper abstract.

(Just pointing it out here so people don’t skip the article while thinking there’s nothing else there.)

Did you read the article? Their findings were that not using such algorithms did not have the expected effect. That social networks themselves, by their nature, lead to similar network, filter, and trigger effects. Chronological order made it worse, not better, apparently.

The engagement driven algorithms making it worse seems intuitive. So I’m surprised and skeptical too. I haven’t read their paper, only the article/interview.

no AI

/edit: There’s a setting under General -> Tabs for the tab group naming suggestions.

The article only talked about about:config.

When they make up a significant amount of energy usage, the demands for amount and infrastructure like production and transfer increase.

They’re not a consumer like the others in that their impact is much higher than what they pay for in terms of paying consumed power.

The article mentions data centers containing as much power as entire cities.

Can you not see how tech company driven ai search responses can influence broader culture and society? It’s not only about web search.

They also broadened from web search to other instances of full on convenience being detrimental to culture.

Yes, and it has been for many many years. In 2011 Adblock Plus deemed some ads acceptable, no longer blocking them categorically. Following that controversity, uBlock Origin became the popular standard.

Honestly, given that Adblock Plus has always had an “acceptable ads” system - I guess they simply decided now YouTube ads are acceptable. Not really surprising then.

Extending and managing extension APIs and extensions also comes at a cost. I certainly wouldn’t be against that - but I’m not familiar with the technical details or cost of the features involved.

no paywall https://archive.md/1lSRA

I got a captcha on the archive, but was able to read the original just fine. I guess archives are not necessarily lower barrier.

“I wish that was treated as a teachable moment, not a law enforcement moment,” said Patterson.

Seems like the Gaggle CEO has a good view. They’re still an enabler in these situations. Be it poor guidance or training. With the impact they have, taking responsibility would be tracking and ceasing contracts that do not follow this soft response approach.