4 ms·

The logical conclusion is AI bots exclusively talking to AI bots to complete the circle. It would be funny if it wasn't for all the wasted computing cycles that

The logical conclusion is AI bots exclusively talking to AI bots to complete the circle. It would be funny if it wasn't for all the wasted computing cycles that could be burned for something actually useful instead.

chaxor 3y ago
If they move it to optical compute then we won't have to keep talking so much about the CO2 and compute cycles. I imagine they're having conversations to do just that pretty often now, and hopefully with some action towards getting it done.
- pjc50 3y ago
  ? Optical computing still consumes energy, you can't beat thermodynamics like that. (there is some theoretical research into "reversible computing", but it's not really practical. A side effect is that destroying information is not reversible: so instead of having a two-input one output gate, you have to have 2 inputs 2 outputs and keep the "spare" around to make it reversible.)
wruza 3y ago
That’s how the whole “life” thing works. I don’t think there’s a viable escape route from that, until we invent at-scale negotiation protocols better than arms and market.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Telemarketing could be banned? Or at least held accountable for fraud.
  - Gasp0de 3y ago
    It is banned in most civilized countries.
    - amelius 3y ago
      How are e.g. billboards and online ads not "tele-marketing"?
      - pseudocomposer 3y ago
        Why shouldn’t they be banned too?
        DavidAdams 3y ago
        If you don't have the right to hold up a sign saying whatever you want on land that you own, it's a serious limitation on your free speech. So while I think it's reasonable to place safety and aesthetic restrictions on advertising, it's worth balancing those restrictions against free speech ideals.
        pjc50 3y ago
        Man, am I glad that the UK has the Advertising Standards Authority ensuring I don't have to deal with an unlimited stream of fraud. Oh and there's essentially zero political advertising on TV, it's all submarined into "news" programmes. (I would possibly make an exception for cases where people want to put their speech on their land, but the moment it's a corporation paying someone to put up an advert? That's not individual speech any more, is it?)
        philipwhiuk 3y ago
        You don't need to have free speech right to be paid for someone else's board though to protect that. We can make it really tedious to advertise by forcing them to buy the land itself and deal with title transfer, without impacting free speech of people.
        flohofwoe 3y ago
        Advertisement is now "free speech"? That's an "interesting interpretation" to say the least.
        3y ago
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- yowzadave 3y ago
  “No Way To Prevent This”, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
- jgalt212 3y ago
  ssh keys for people.
varelse 3y ago
[dead]
inglor_cz 3y ago
I suspect this is what will happen with all the ESG and DEI reports, too. Robots will churn them out and other robots will check them.
squarefoot 3y ago
"Using AI to fool telemarketers is theft" will be the next "using adblockers is theft".
- frumper 3y ago
  You don’t call telemarketers or solicit their services. That is quite a bit different than seeking out a websites content and circumventing the method that content provider chose to generate income.
  - flohofwoe 3y ago
    A web page which integrates ads from external ad networks is just as intrusive though. There's actually nothing wrong with curated self-hosted ads (which would be similar to traditional print magazine ads), but just opening up a part of your webpage to let a 3rd-party run potentially malicious code on my device is borderline criminal. From that perspective, an ad-blocker should be pretty much mandatory for security reasons and should be a standard feature of every browser, just like popup blockers are now expected.
    - frumper 3y ago
      I don’t care if you use an ad blocker, but that is most certainly allowing you to view content you want without providing the intended revenue to the provider. That is just the reality.
      - flohofwoe 3y ago
        I'm aware of that reality, but tbh, I don't care either. It's a business model decision by that content provider, and if that business model no longer works (because for instance too many people install an ad-blocker) it's their problem to find a different business model that works under that new reality (just as they were forced to find a new business model when popup blockers became mainstream). It's not that there are no options (for instance a subscription paywall or a 'pay-per-view' solution, that would also allow to judge whether the content quality is actually worth anything to anybody).

chaxor 3y ago

If they move it to optical compute then we won't have to keep talking so much about the CO2 and compute cycles. I imagine they're having conversations to do just that pretty often now, and hopefully with some action towards getting it done.

pjc50 3y ago
? Optical computing still consumes energy, you can't beat thermodynamics like that. (there is some theoretical research into "reversible computing", but it's not really practical. A side effect is that destroying information is not reversible: so instead of having a two-input one output gate, you have to have 2 inputs 2 outputs and keep the "spare" around to make it reversible.)

wruza 3y ago

That’s how the whole “life” thing works. I don’t think there’s a viable escape route from that, until we invent at-scale negotiation protocols better than arms and market.

pjc50 3y ago
Telemarketing could be banned? Or at least held accountable for fraud.
- Gasp0de 3y ago
  It is banned in most civilized countries.
  - amelius 3y ago
    How are e.g. billboards and online ads not "tele-marketing"?
    - pseudocomposer 3y ago
      Why shouldn’t they be banned too?
      - DavidAdams 3y ago
        If you don't have the right to hold up a sign saying whatever you want on land that you own, it's a serious limitation on your free speech. So while I think it's reasonable to place safety and aesthetic restrictions on advertising, it's worth balancing those restrictions against free speech ideals.
        pjc50 3y ago
        Man, am I glad that the UK has the Advertising Standards Authority ensuring I don't have to deal with an unlimited stream of fraud. Oh and there's essentially zero political advertising on TV, it's all submarined into "news" programmes. (I would possibly make an exception for cases where people want to put their speech on their land, but the moment it's a corporation paying someone to put up an advert? That's not individual speech any more, is it?)
        philipwhiuk 3y ago
        You don't need to have free speech right to be paid for someone else's board though to protect that. We can make it really tedious to advertise by forcing them to buy the land itself and deal with title transfer, without impacting free speech of people.
        flohofwoe 3y ago
        Advertisement is now "free speech"? That's an "interesting interpretation" to say the least.
      - 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
yowzadave 3y ago
“No Way To Prevent This”, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
jgalt212 3y ago
ssh keys for people.

varelse 3y ago

[dead]

inglor_cz 3y ago

I suspect this is what will happen with all the ESG and DEI reports, too. Robots will churn them out and other robots will check them.

squarefoot 3y ago

"Using AI to fool telemarketers is theft" will be the next "using adblockers is theft".

frumper 3y ago
You don’t call telemarketers or solicit their services. That is quite a bit different than seeking out a websites content and circumventing the method that content provider chose to generate income.
- flohofwoe 3y ago
  A web page which integrates ads from external ad networks is just as intrusive though. There's actually nothing wrong with curated self-hosted ads (which would be similar to traditional print magazine ads), but just opening up a part of your webpage to let a 3rd-party run potentially malicious code on my device is borderline criminal. From that perspective, an ad-blocker should be pretty much mandatory for security reasons and should be a standard feature of every browser, just like popup blockers are now expected.
  - frumper 3y ago
    I don’t care if you use an ad blocker, but that is most certainly allowing you to view content you want without providing the intended revenue to the provider. That is just the reality.
    - flohofwoe 3y ago
      I'm aware of that reality, but tbh, I don't care either. It's a business model decision by that content provider, and if that business model no longer works (because for instance too many people install an ad-blocker) it's their problem to find a different business model that works under that new reality (just as they were forced to find a new business model when popup blockers became mainstream). It's not that there are no options (for instance a subscription paywall or a 'pay-per-view' solution, that would also allow to judge whether the content quality is actually worth anything to anybody).