Readit News>The spelling lede (/ˈliːd/, from Early Modern English) is also used in American English, originally to avoid confusion with the printing press type formerly made from the metal lead or the related typographical term "leading".
Because most people don't care! I wish they did, because I'm like you, I do care about owning DRM free media! I buy videos game from GOG wherever possible, and audiobooks from a combination of downpour.com and libro.fm. Guess what most people do? They buy games on Steam and audiobooks on Audible.
Audible is the one that really breaks my heart! Games and movies I understand, because the DRM free sources have such narrow selections, but I can find just about any audiobook I want on either Downpour or libro.fm; every once in a while I'll come across an audible exclusive, but it doesn't happen frequently. And yet, everybody uses Audible!
And, sure, there are known ways to strip Audible DRM, but with DRM free stores so readily accessible, why wouldn't you use those?
Just had a browse of Downpour. They say that it's mostly DRM-free. I don't get it. How come the rights holders don't complain? My experience of DRM-free e-books is that the available titles are, let's say, nothing I would want to read. And audiobooks have higher production value because of the voice acting. What A-list authors are narrating their own books and then allowing them to be sold DRM-free?
If you can follow that logic, you will see that this makes many, many things possible. Anonymous credentials are possible right now and extend to anything. It can represent "this anon identity is a PhD in physics", "this one is a lawyer with 5 years experience in criminal law", etc. But this sort of mechanism starts with being able to say "this is a singular person, with identity verified by X mechanism".
It is absolutely foundational and the opposite of dystopian. It allows us to combat every current dystopian mechanism without creating any additional compared to what already exists.
Clearly the crucial issue is the "untraceability" of the ID. In practice somebody is going to have to know who is who, and in practice the state is going to arrogate that role, as perhaps it should. So the fundamental question is whether it is possible to make the state democratically accountable.
That's not something to be proud of that you upvoted it.
It's not a discussion, unless you think talking to an LLM is a discussion or equivalent to HN.
And obviously if this is permitted or rewarded with upvotes it's just going to become an endless spam site of people posting low effort cotton candy they didn't need any thought to produce. No signal all noise
There's at least one value to LLM content: it always outputs correct grammar and punctuation. Unlike this human sentence of yours, which took me two attempts to parse because it's missing a necessary clause separator.
But on the substance of your comment, I (generally) agree.
I am, along certain axes, a big fan of DIY forums like the r/DIYUK subreddit, and it pisses me off to no end that when anybody asks a serious question looking for serious help the top 5 comments will, as like as not, be bullshit, cheap, obvious, "funny" one-liners from people whose sense of humour has never evolved beyond the playground and that contain zero useful information. I've even considered volunteering as a mod on that particular sub just so I can delete all of these "humorous" comments so that the actual useful information makes it to the top of the page. So, yeah, I've come around to the HN point of view on humour.
But, nevertheless, like you, I found this funny.
I think the majority of the population will respond similarly, and the consequences will either force us to make the “note: this might be full of shit” disclaimer much larger, or maybe include warnings in the outputs. It’s not that people don’t have critical thinking skills— we’ve just sold these things as magic answer machines and anthropomorphized them well enough to trigger actual human trust and bonding in people. People might feel bad not trusting the output for the same reason they thank Siri. I think the vendors of chatbots haven’t put nearly enough time into preemptively addressing this danger.
It isn't? I agree that it's a fallacy to put this down to "people are dumb", but I still don't get it. These AI chatbots are statistical text generators. They generate text based on probability. It remains absolutely beyond me why someone would assume the output of a text generator to be the truth.