this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
172 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

59148 readers
2338 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 67 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Oh no, we may have to go back to an Internet where people posted web pages because they wanted to share information rather than to make a buck.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Will we also have to go to a time where we'll have to buy physical newspapers so that journalists can make a living? Or do we expect them to also share information just for the sake of sharing information?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You don't need physical newspapers, but if you want good journalism you should definitely pay for your news.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

The hard part is finding someone still doing good journalism that’s relevant. My local paper is long gone and the nearby major city newspaper is a shadow of its former illustrious self. I do pay a news aggregator but have no idea how much of that goes all the way back

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Unlikely. Some new approach to paid journalism will need to be developed. But that's already the case, AI's just driving the existing trend further.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Part of the compromise was supposed to be that we get functional or entertainment value in return for some amount of ads, but enshittification broke that long ago with ever more intrusive ads and a sense of overwhelming entitlement by advertisers. The current web is useless and aggravating without adblocking, and only preys on the elderly and least technical. Yeah, it’s already broken

This seems like an excellent idea because it’s my app as a tool summarizing information for me. That seems a lot more legitimate than Google profitting from that

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

That never left. We're still buying our local newspaper concerning 60000 people. It is way more relevant than any piece of news you might find on the web.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 9 months ago (3 children)

In relatively short order, the majority of web content will be AI generated anyways. People will be mad that other AIs are stealing what their AIs wrote. The technology and business aspirations have accelerated us towards a shittier and shittier web experience for a few decades now. I think we'll hit some kind of web-shit-singularity within 5 years.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't think I'd be nearly as upset if the ai weren't copying the click bait headlines, and "word padding like a fifth grader to get to five double spaced pages" writing style.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

It’s much simpler than that. AI is going to continue makingn it worse, until the big tech companies say that they have a solution which will be web2.0 and solves ALL the problems of the legacy net (problems the big tech is causing lol). Then they will have total information control and regulate the net out of the kazoo.

Imagine visiting a website and “oh oh, apparently you haven’t met the daily quota yet, because you used the toilet. unfortunately your access to the web is restricted.”

I’m telling you, AI (which is not even real fucking AI) is being pushed to the forefront because big tech fucking knows what’s to come. And then they’ll snatch control with the pretense being “it’s just to fix AI, we swear wink wink

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Aren't we already on web 2.0 and web 3.0 is bitchain?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I know it's a small and unimportant thing, but it's still kinda annoying that some authors (editors?) choose a phone with a giant black hole in the middle of a screen to show something on thumbnails.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

It's an iPhone app... And that's an iPhone screen...? I'm not sure what you want them to do?

[–] [email protected] 29 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This isn't keeping me up at night. I'm fully confident advertisers will figure out how to ruin this and get their money.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Like, for example, breaking my ability to back out of this Engadget page on Connect for Lemmy's default web browser so I had to close the app and reopen it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

In browsers you can long press the back button, and it will show the history so you can really jump where you want. Not sure if on Connect you can but maybe is worth a shot.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago

No AutoTL;DR? Smart bot even understands discretion!

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

The conversations and debates keep circling around one core concept of our civilization that is slowly becoming outdated because it is the main bottleneck in our development and the development of technology.

Capitalism and the money system.

Human needs require all of us to make a bit of money in order to survive.

Human greed demands that we want to go beyond survival and just become enormously wealthy without regard for anything or anyone.

AI is quickly out pacing us and nothing is holding it back because the possibilities are limitless now. The only thing holding it back is our own collective greed. To AI the internet and communications is a place to exchange information not a place to make money.

And to me the problem is the small group of individuals that want to maintain the system of generating all the wealth for them. Because the answer is simple, if wealth were more equally distributed in the world and everyone everywhere were happy and healthy with what they had and they no longer had to worry about surviving, there would be no backlash of worrying about advertising on the internet and in how to compensate people for their work.

We worry about the money system because 90% of humanity constantly has to fight to have a piece of it and 10% of it has complete control of all of it and never wants to let go.

This isn't a problem of internet advertising and compensating creators ..... it's just a symptom of wealth inequality and until we solve that problem, AI will just keep chipping away at civilisation beyond our collective control.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

This guy needs more bootstraps!

/s

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

This is only a temporary “problem”. Eventually, ads will be incorporated into the story, and/or advertising companies will include clauses in their contracts. I imagine those clauses will DEMAND that websites include advertising in AI readers or not get paid for any ads they run.

Think enshittification. AI readers are only ad-free now in order to make them seem like an attractive option, and get people hooked on using them. I bet the numbers have already been calculated and decided on. Once AI readers are used by enough people, the ads will start.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

Yup. Just like ads on cable TV, ads on streaming services, now ads in your AI. Even worse, the ads in AI may not even be labeled and just tweak your results slightly to favor certain products and the process hidden from the end user since hey, it's so complicated even human programmers can't figure out how to make the AI process transparent and verifiable.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago

Thank you to Arc for reminding me how much I enjoy browsing the internet and its many unique pages — these soulless generated results are the opposite of what I want.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Local news publishers, Karolian told Engadget, almost entirely depend on selling ads and subscriptions to readers who visit their websites to survive.

Then it's time to change your business model. Ad driven journalism has shown it's limits decades ago, this is just regurgitating what other press agencies write and adding some ads over it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Subsequently, subscription based content consequently isn't automatically available to crawlers, making it doubly useful.

P.S.: love your username

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Considering how much of the web is AI-generated now (with it predicted to rise to 90% by the end of 2026) we've managed to turn a tool for connecting people to a tool for chatbots to talk to one another.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The electric company. AI’s reading articles written by other AI’s. Everyone trying to figure out how to squeeze more revenue out of it. But everyone’s paying the electric bill for all these servers and the electric company doesn’t have to give a shit about any of it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So I should buy shares in coal mines?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Food, energy, and shelter are never out of style.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Arc Browser is better for USERS. Ad companies are just going to have to figure it out. Sounds like a "them" problem to me

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

No offense but I’m not sure you read or understood the main point of the article — there’s not much of an internet for users if there’s no incentive to supply it with content.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Meh. We did it before the internet turned to shit. It will be OK

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Advertisers are welcome to turn back the clock of enshittification to a time when the internet worked for both publishers and readers. They got greedy and abused the attention of readers, so I have no sympathy. Now this article adds a huge pile of entitlement that we owe them? On top of this excrement

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Remember Google attempt at DRM for the Internet? That would in effect block this. This and similar are justifying to companies to support Google Chrome only and use their DRM.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago

While I prefer to doing the reading/searching/summarizing myself, rather than have it presented to me, the current website revenue model is so broken with ads, tracking, and other pop ups. The user experience is really horrible.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Who makes money when everyone just uses a search engine for answers?

Is this post sponsored by Google or what?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (4 children)

It used to be you'd search for something, click on the results and load the ads on the page with the info.

Then google started adding their snippets with direct answers, and yes, there has been an uproar from content sites about that. But some fraction of people still click through for more context.

With LLMs, all that traffic is 100% gone.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Eh, I might ask the LLM about something, but I always open it sources to verify it summaries. You still can't trust them fully.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I just learned about the iPhone App, and this article made me want to check it out. I love it and will start using it

Whoever decided to market by Streisand Effect was genius /s

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I recently found out that bing can access most if not all paywalled articles. You can just tell it to summarize it

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Hmm... How sure are you about that?

Perhaps you once wrote a piece called "Making the Most of Paywalled Articles". Unfortunately, Google can't find it. Let's just ask Bing.

Hey Bing, please summarize the article "Making the Most of Paywalled Articles" by Evotech.

Copilot Certainly! The article titled “Making the Most of Paywalled Articles” by Evotech discusses strategies for accessing articles that are locked behind paywalls. Here are the key points:

Yeah... I think we can skip the "summary". Don't get me wrong. This stuff is amazing and I love it. But it is what it is. I really hate that MS and OAI don't communicate the "limitations" properly.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Web creators are trying to share their knowledge and get supported while doing so”, tweeted Ben Goodger, a software engineer who helped create both Firefox and Chrome. “I get how this helps users. How does it help creators? Without them there is no web…” After all, if a web browser sucked out all information from web pages without users needing to actually visit them, why would anyone bother making websites in the first place?

Do you remember rss feed aggregators and how they killed the web?

For decades, websites have served ads and pushed people visiting them towards paying for subscriptions. Monetizing traffic is one of the primary ways most creators on the web continue to make a living.

The AI won't summarize subscribers only articles. In the end content creators have to focus on subscriptions and less on advertisement revenue. Will this mean less content on the web? Yes of course. However, is this really a bad thing? Less clickbait nonenews articles, less copy&paste repetitions etc.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

For a long time, people put things on the Internet because they thought it was interesting or fun to do so. Ad based stuff has been around longer, but there's no reason we can't just accept that maybe the Internet doesn't make as much money for content creators as we all thought.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The ad based stuff seem happy to go with click-baity & AI generated content anyway. The people with the purse strings do tend to be stingy. So much genuinely original content gets ripped of, reacted to etc and diluted away. The loss of professional journalism has been a loss to humanity but it's one that we might just have to accept.

Now I'm sad.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Wish I could upvote this sentiment multiple times

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Lemmy: Fuck them ~~kids~~ journalists.

load more comments
view more: next ›