Even after Automattic acquired it, the site continued to lose money at a rate of $30 million each year, the company’s CEO Matt Mullenweg had said.
I still wanna know what they're spending all that money on, because I'm sure it's not developers or even servers. The idea that they can only be profitable if they're constantly growing their user numbers is an investor idea that's doomed to fail eventually and why so many social media sites are crashing right now
And then they'll cancel anything they didn't spam the front page with and blame it on low viewership
Pixelfed is the federated alternative, not sure if it's open source though
Because those pages had information that wasn't on the new pages?
Just from my own experience, WotC migrated the Magic the Gathering site to a new one, and while some articles were brought over there were a whole lot of stories, strategies and event coverage that were lost or are only available thanks to Archive.org
What's the benefit of going private for a company that's owned by private equity? Like from a regular standpoint, not being subjected to the constant growth demands of shareholders is good, but I wouldn't think private equity cares about that as long as they're making money
Being entitled to equal rights doesn't mean they actually get them. It also doesn't account for the fact that many Palestinians are denied citizenship or remain in occupied territories controlled by Israel and explicitly not guaranteed equal rights
The comprehensive report, Israel’s Apartheid against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime against Humanity, sets out how massive seizures of Palestinian land and property, unlawful killings, forcible transfer, drastic movement restrictions, and the denial of nationality and citizenship to Palestinians are all components of a system which amounts to apartheid under international law. This system is maintained by violations which Amnesty International found to constitute apartheid as a crime against humanity, as defined in the Rome Statute and Apartheid Convention.
That's basically what most tech companies are trying to optimize these days, the ability to make money off of other people's work. It's why they're so hyped about trying to use AI to replace the very workers it's trained on.
But simply knowing the right words to say in response to a moral conundrum isn't the same as having an innate understanding of what makes something moral. The researchers also reference a previous study showing that criminal psychopaths can distinguish between different types of social and moral transgressions, even as they don't respect those differences in their lives. The researchers extend the psychopath analogy by noting that the AI was judged as more rational and intelligent than humans but not more emotional or compassionate.
This brings about worries that an AI might just be "convincingly bullshitting" about morality in the same way it can about many other topics without any signs of real understanding or moral judgment. That could lead to situations where humans trust an LLM's moral evaluations even if and when that AI hallucinates "inaccurate or unhelpful moral explanations and advice."
Despite the results, or maybe because of them, the researchers urge more study and caution in how LLMs might be used for judging moral situations. "If people regard these AIs as more virtuous and more trustworthy, as they did in our study, they might uncritically accept and act upon questionable advice," they write.
Great, so the headline of the article directly feeds into the issue the scientists are warning about when it comes to public perception of AI morality
God they just rebranded trickle-down-economics
Well shit, time to find an alternative
I think you're cooking here, maybe you can get a government grant to fund this