And if they need to keep their own output out of the system to avoid model collapse, why don't I?
There's this double standard. Slop is bad for models. Keep it out of the models at all costs! They cannot wait to put it into my head though. They don't care about my head.
It feels like a natural competitive extension to any company seriously trying to usurp Google's browser domination including but not limited to paying Apple to be the default search engine
It feels like a little Freudian slip left over from the pitch to investors, who clearly are mostly thinking about the value of companies in terms of their ability to juice their other AI bets.
You're pitching to users now though. Why would they be excited to hear that you think of yourself as being in business "for AI agents" rather than humans?
They're not really the same kind of thing. LSP is a carrier format, but it doesn't know or care how you parse things, whether it's with PEGs or an earley parser or shift reduce or whatever
Won't be available to anyone terminated for copyright stuff.
Woooow what a huge dick move.
That's the one massively imbalanced power dynamic that I hear people really fear losing their livelihood to for no good reason, and they're leaving it there to terrorize and ruin livelihoods for future generations.
I put up a video of a funeral service for my grandma and like 5 minutes later I was getting threatening legalese mail about my channel by cancelled forever because some record label has a recording of a thousand year old hymn and they don't give a shit about threatening people with no legal basis at all
Trusting your livelihood to platforms like YouTube already puts you in an incredibly precarious position, even if you are playing by the rules. The Adocalypse comes to mind, as do random algorithm changes and flawed automation leading to videos getting demonetized. It's no wonder most of the creators I follow are hedging their bets on paid promotions and crowd funding platforms (which all have the same problems). I couldn't imagine the stress in relying on all that to pay off a mortgage.
Oh man I had a similar experience and realized how horrible it was. I put up a recording of me teaching my kids some Carnatic music. (The "twinkle twinkle little star" equivalent songs were like 800 years old). And I got takedowns almost immediately. Wtf. Luckily I was working at Goog at the time so I was able to actually find the "form" to explain how bs this was and was able to get those takedowns taken down! But then I tried to find an external way of doing it and it was easier to drive rusted nails through my eyeballs!
They didn't force anything, they gave them a choice, and Google consciously and actively chose to make this decision.
AP News chooses to still call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico; a different choice from the outlets that no longer do. The New York Times, NBC News, the Hill and CNN chose to rather have their Pentagon access revoked; a different choice than the one made by New York Post, One America News Network, Breitbart News Network, HuffPost News and others.
It's important to keep repeating this. Companies, organizations and individuals all have choices. Not every one of them makes the same choice given the same situation - in fact, they make opposite choices.
Your second example of a choice is a consequence of a choice. Those companies chose not to comply with new reporting rules which resulted in having their Pentagon access revoked. This is an important distinction when given "choices" that aren't really choices but mandates.
As far as how this YouTube scenario is different, people can host their content elsewhere, but there's only one Pentagon in the US.
Unfortunately they have a virtual monopoly on ugc video streaming. Without competitive pressure highly centralized services become the playfield of government forces.
That's hilarious it's so strange to see copyright arguments in 2025 when every tech company that mingles in AI just doesn't give a fuck? Why should I care?
AI training is fair use. For pirating books, they probably calculate that the fine will be lower than their profits.
Assuming you're putting videos on YouTube, you should care because they have leverage over you and can ban you.
You seem to imply some kind of moral terms or reasons based on principles but that's not how corporations work. And either way they will get a pass because their stuff is extremely valuable for intelligence agencies and the military.
But I'm generally disinterested in the US style of these debates where it's all about twisting words and creatively interpreting old laws. In functioning countries they just adopt new and clear laws.
Last heard on Gamers Nexus. A multi-million subscriber channel that got hit with a copyright strike by (I think it was) Bloomberg and falsely claimed. They had no legal ground and YouTube cracked down on them. Ef YouTube and ef their blog post.
And I love how they're framing it as a "Second Chance". Like, you fucked up but we're going to be big and compassionate just this once.
The cynical me suspects that this instead is a more sweeping plan to cover for their coming re-listing of all the hate-filled, extremist channels that they had delisted in the past.
> The cynical me suspects that this instead is a more sweeping plan to cover for their coming re-listing of all the hate-filled, extremist channels that they had delisted in the past.
That's exactly what this is. And they're probably going to be pushed to delist LGBT content under some vague upcoming project 2025 indecency regulation by the FCC.
With that, I was referring to the definition in the article: "The spec is the main source file over time, and only the spec is edited by the human, the human never touches the code". That's how Specific works.
And I think that opens up a very interesting question about quality. If the human never touches the code, then "good code" gets replaced with "good specs" instead, and I don't think anybody knows what constitutes good specs in that context right now!
That is just so at odds with my way of thinking. The code is the spec -- the only spec that matters. The only way of describing the behavior that everyone can agree on the meaning of.
A design document can add color, but only the code tells you what the application does
There's this double standard. Slop is bad for models. Keep it out of the models at all costs! They cannot wait to put it into my head though. They don't care about my head.
reply