This is interesting. It seems a fair resolution would be to pay the content owner what they would have made in ad revenue.
As long as the AI is not reproducing original works to the extent that it violates fair use, I don’t think copyright laws really apply. But there’s definitely lost revenue.
While I am generally in the “copyright doesn’t matter when it comes to AI” camp, I also work in advertising. Most people do not use ad blockers.
This is an interesting point that I haven’t previously considered.
The cost is too high? Seriously?
You’re not paying anything for the service. You have no concept of what their costs are. You’re mildly inconvenienced by some annoying and slightly obtrusive ads.
It’s a business, not a charity. And they owe you nothing.
Sponsored search placements haven’t really changed. Most ads are run through AdWords which are found across the web and on mobile apps. Even this post is about ads run within videos. Thus unrelated to search.
Yeah, completely agree. But this is also Lemmy. The majority of users are either a communist or almost a communist. And usually have a pretty bad understanding of what that even entails. Generally they just want everything to be free or paid for by someone else.
Who do you expect to pay for it?
Always was. How tf do you think they make money
So many people in this comment section are pissed that YouTube isn’t both free and ad-free. It’s mind blowing.
Yes, YouTube is a business and exists to generate revenue.
It’s definitely written by someone who’s never used a VR headset. It only takes a second to realize that these screens are nowhere near the resolution of your eye. Ya know, cause small text that would be easily read on my phone is blurry as fuck on a VR headset
Wow didn’t see that the first time
I am very well aware of the automated pricing tools in Amazon. The accounts under my management will do over $3.5 million in sales this month. I will also manage almost $1 million in ad spend. I may be the only person in this comment section with a qualified opinion.
These tools cannot adjust price based on customer data. They can adjust pricing based on competitor prices, and based on how many units you are currently selling. That is all.
An engine increasing in size by 1 liter does not make the vehicle itself larger. These vehicles exist, that is not changing. Manufacturers are working to make these engines more efficient.
The ability to win the buy box is exceptionally predictable.
It is based on a combination of factors. The price point, fulfillment method, shipping cost, and feedback provided by customers about each individual seller.
If I am the brand owner, using Fulfillment by Amazon, have the lowest price, and good seller feedback, I will win.
If you come on the listing a lower price, no shipping cost, and equivalent feedback, but you are shipping the item yourself and have a slightly lower feedback rating, you will not win the buy box.
The system is not rigged against the customer. Amazon is attempting to improve the customer experience, with price just being part of it
Prices do not vary based on estimated income. Pricing control is not that granular.
There is a new promotion type used by sellers that allow us to target people who have abandoned cart. We can offer exclusive discounts to those people.
Majority of products are not sold by Amazon. Some sellers use price automation software, some use built-in functionality provided by Amazon. Amazons built in functionality allows sellers to set competitive prices relative to other sellers on Amazon.
It has nothing to do with page views, clicks, or cart adds. Sellers cannot see cart adds in real time.
If you read the article, you would see that larger diesel engines have lower emissions due to reduced compression ratios.
Completely agree. And that should be the focal point of the issue.
Sam Altman is correctly stating that AI is not possible without using copyrighted materials. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.
His mistake is not redirecting the conversation. He should be talking about the efforts they’re making to stop their machine from reproducing copyrighted works. Not whether or not they should be allowed to use it in the first place.
I don’t agree. The publisher of the material does not get to dictate what it is used for. What are we protecting at the end of the day and why?
In the case of a textbook, someone worked hard to explain certain materials in a certain way to make the material easily digestible. They produced examples to explain concepts. Reproducing and disseminating that material would be unfair to the author who worked hard to produce it.
But the author does not have jurisdiction over the knowledge gained. They cannot tell the reader that they are forbidden from using the knowledge gained to tutor another person in calculus. That would be absurd.
IP law protects the works of the creator. The author of a calculus textbook did not invent calculus. As such, copyright law does not apply.
Hackers like to glitch other users. Randomly turn into a toilet, have all of your ammunition disappear, suddenly fly into the air and die on impact. It made public servers unplayable. Friends only sessions were necessary