It's renting vs. owning. I care a lot about music, so I don't like paying monthly for it without even getting to build a real collection.
Also, it's just nice to not be at the whims of corporations and copyright lawyers. It sucks when some song you love gets taken down, or your streaming app introduces some shitty UI changes, or you find out the company you're paying has been doing unethical shit, or the monthly fee goes up, or any number of other annoyances.
It's the opposite - we're way less centralized now. No one cares about what's on the radio or MTV anymore. We have infinite access to every song ever* for $11 a month, and the recommendation algorithms will happily show you music outside the mainstream and outside the current decade if that's what keeps you listening.
> No one cares about what's on the radio or MTV anymore.
Why not?
> if that's what keeps you listening.
That's the key, though. Kids are generally biased toward new music. This phenomenon is perfectly natural and consistent over the generations, as shown in the article. In the 1980s, it wasn't particularly hard to "discover" 70s or 60s music, and indeed parents might want their kids to listen to their music, but that's not necessarily what the kids want to listen to, because it's not cool. Parents are uncool. Kids want their own music.
What's interesting, though, is that GenZ and Millennials appear to be less biased toward the new music and less biased against the old. The fact that every song ever is available for streaming doesn't mean that people want to listen to every song ever. My understanding is the streaming plays are very top-heavy toward the top artists, and smaller artists are struggling mightily under the streaming payout system.
How? It's fine to have on people with all different viewpoints, including awful ones, but I think pushing back when they're on some bullshit is good and necessary. Otherwise you're just uncritically spreading fake junk to a huge audience, which leads to more people believing in fake junk.
>Are the modified Pokemon being used in competitions?
Interestingly, it's pretty much standard for competitive Pokemon players to use hacked Pokemon because of the crazy time investment the game demands to train Pokemon with optimal stats and movesets legitimately. They use free methods to do this though.
Those seem like really bad numbers to me, considering the base rate fallacy. Most of what people test with something like that is probably not going to be AI-generated, which could mean getting massive numbers of false positives.
Then watermark the output and say if they wrote it. Between a binary classifier in the age of adversarial training, and any level of watermarking, you’d be able to say which minor version printed it.
I don't think it's possible to watermark AI generated text in a way that can't be easily removed by someone who simply switches a word around or adds a typo.
Spot catches the people who can beat OpenAI on non-trivial stenography: sophisticated actors aren’t what this is about catching. They’re going to get away with some level of abuse no matter what. APTs? They can afford their own LLM programs just fine: some of them have credible quantum computing programs.
But a lot of propaganda is going to take place at the grassroots level by actors who can’t beat OpenAI, even one in decline, at breaking both watermarks and an adversarial model.
But the grand finale is of course, at this point how has OpenAI behaved like anything other than an APT itself. It’s the friendly, plucky underdog charity that’s now manipulating the process on making things illegal without involving congress.
That’s exactly how advanced actors operate: look at the xz thing.
