7 ms·
Paying a nominal amount for each stream is one matter; however, compensating nothing for smaller quantities while you pay for larger amounts presents a fundamen
by Manheim 3y ago
Paying a nominal amount for each stream is one matter; however, compensating nothing for smaller quantities while you pay for larger amounts presents a fundamentally different issue. This scenario is akin to an author not receiving royalties for the first 1,000 books sold in a bookstore, or a manufacturer not being paid for the first 1,000 candy bars sold at a grocery store. Such practices can be equated with theft. It's perplexing how current legislation permits this.
- poszlem 3y ago[flagged]
- arter 3y agoWeird for me the phrasing "presents a fundamentally different issue" is so hackernews-like. "Can be equated with theft" also. I feel like I have seen them a thousand times on here from regular old people. Maybe that part did not get rephrased.
- soapdog 3y agoEer… I write like that all the time; specially if the subject is something important to me.
- ornornor 3y agoOr maybe it’s written by someone who has a larger vocabulary and knows when to use a semicolon? Trying to guess whether something was written by AI or not is, to me, akin to reading tea leaves. Furthermore, I don’t think there is a reliably consistent way to tell if a piece of text is AI generated or not so if you can tell better than randomly, you’ll make a fortune.
- breakfastduck 3y agoauthor has already responded saying they wrote it then fed it through GPT because they're not native English speaker. So they were right on the money.
- suction 3y ago[dead]
- namanyayg 3y agoNo, this is much brief and to-the-point than what GPT usually generates.
- Manheim 3y agotrue, I first wrote it in my own words, and then I used gpt to improve the English since I'm not English language native. So well spotted. However, what would you/ people prefer, lesser formulations, or precise GPT? Of course, I should improve my English skills. I'm always working on that. Here is the work process: https://chat.openai.com/share/648d0c85-9661-4096-afcc-f927799455ce https://chat.openai.com/share/648d0c85-9661-4096-afcc-f92779...
- hashtag-til 3y agoThe original text is fine. No need to manicure it via gpt. Who are you trying to please?
- Manheim 3y agoIt's not who, but what. I just want to be presise. I found the improved comment to be better than my original text, and closer to how I would've formulated myself in my native language.
- hombre_fatal 3y agoYou can avoid this kind of moment by telling the LLM to write in a certain less formal style rather than using its “default voice”.
- piva00 3y agoPersonally I'd prefer your own words with GPT tasked to just correct grammar instead of rephrasing it. The GPT-generated rephrasing sounds very off to me due to the formality it introduced in your tone, it flourishes the comment to sound "proper" in a formal tone but completely misses the informal aspect of a comments' section. I'm not a native speaker either, sometimes I re-read some of my own comments and realise I could have phrased them much better, corrected some grammar but I prefer that they sound like me.
- poszlem 3y agoAs I said, there is nothing wrong about using chatgpt, and I use it all the time (also not a native english speaker). Just found it funny, that even with text is often very easy to tell.
- altacc 3y agoOr your AI radar needs calibrating ;) A lot of generative content is becoming hard to differentiate from human created content and it's also becoming common to see people like yourself assign false positives. I think it's good to be skeptical but as a skeptic myself I know there's downsides to considering everything suspiciously. Unfortunately I don't think we'll ever find a good solution for wanting to know if what we're looking at is AI or not.
- hashtag-til 3y agoThis comment didn't age well :)
- Cheezemansam 3y agohttps://imgur.com/a/ssxiS6X https://imgur.com/a/ssxiS6X God. GPT is going to fucking ruin online discourse.
- coldtea 3y ago>Has anyone else noticed that? I find the use of words like "akin" and "perplexing" to be fairly good hints, as well as things like using ";" for punctuation (which is very rarely used in normal online speech). I use "akin" relatively frequently, and "perplexing" ocassionally, as well as other such "rare" (?) words. Is english vocabulary beyond the top-1000 most common words or anything above 2 syllables considered a sign of AI these days? If anything marks it as AI, it's the overall tone and phrasing (too "mechanistic"), not the use of ";", "akin" or "perplexing".
- Shorel 3y agoTherefore, Idiocracy was a science fiction film about how to talk to not be confused with an AI =)
- tzs 3y ago> as well as things like using ";" for punctuation (which is very rarely used in normal online speech) For many of us our "normal online speech" is largely identical to our normal written speech except when writing somewhere where we either are not using a normal sized physical keyboard or where posts need to be severely limited in length.
- alcover 3y ago> Has anyone else noticed that? No, and I think you're gifted with good pattern recognition! Now models could be trained adversarially against this GPTZero and you'd have a harder time..
- whatisyour 3y agoAnd nothing is wrong about that in my opinion. As long as the point they are making is cogent, better use of English is just better for the whole environment. Also, I use akin and perplexing quite often in my text. The semicolon much more rarely however. But when I write professional text, then yes, I use semicolons too.
- ergonaught 3y agoI use "akin"; I use semicolons; I find your take perplexing, insulting, and depressing. That remains true despite the commenter actually using LLM to polish the language.
- yreg 3y agoThe way this should work is that there can be some minimum earning threshold the seller has to achieve to be paid out by the platform. But! once the seller achieves it, they should be paid in full for all the units sold/streamed before achieving the threshold as well. E.g. App Store requires you to earn $100 equivalent to pay out earnings in Colombia. In many countries the threshold is currently $0.02, but it used to be much higher. https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-connect/reference/minimum-payment-threshold/ https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-connect/reference...
- gcr 3y agoWhy is this desirable? Wouldn’t it be more desirable to pay artists for everything? The implied comparison is with the status quo, and both Spotify’s and your proposals frankly kinda suck
- yreg 3y agoWell, because at some point the processing fees are so high it makes no sense to distribute the earnings. I don't think it's reasonable to expect to get "peanuts" paid out. Google AdSense is the same; you have to earn at least $100 to get it paid out, until then the earnings just accumulate in your account. Same goes for YouTube. I don't see it as unreasonable. To be honest, I wouldn't care as a creator/a seller, unless the threshold is set high.
- bitcharmer 3y agoWhat processing fees? This is a digital platform. It's not like there are dozens of bureaucrats stamping tonnes of papers here.
- packetlost 3y agoMoving money around is way more expensive than you think it is, even digitally.
- sunir 3y ago
- subroutine 3y agoThat's not quite right. If they do reach 1000 plays they will be compensated for the first 1000 plays (which is like $4 dollars), and all streams thereafter. What would you change about contract legislation to prevent this?
- Manheim 3y agoI'm not a scholar in law, but I would want the law to prevent someone to take someone elses property/ product and distribute it without compensation in their commercial services. 1000 streams is 1000 uses of a song. If you do not reach 1001 you get zero compensation, and that is in principle stealing in my opinion, and should also be that under the law.
- subroutine 3y agoBut Spotify isn't taking anyone's property. Spotify is saying "here's how our payment system works" and then bands can decide whether to put their songs on Spotify.
- Manheim 3y agoTrue enough, the law should consider market control/ dominance as a factor. A market dominated by a few, should maybe be treated different than a highly competitive marked
- subroutine 3y agoIt does in some circumstances. See apple's app store lawsuit in the EU. However this seems fundamentally different. It's more like youtube (which actually pays far less per stream $.1 - $1 per 1000 streams)
- Manheim 3y agoyes, as I said in my original comment, paying little is one thing, paying nothing is something different. Streaming music has ruined the "product" market for music as it was. That will not change. YT, Spotify, doesn't matter, you do not get much paid for music anymore, unless you are among the top dominant streaming artists in the long tail model. But something is still more than nothing...
- BowBun 3y agoYou could try to equate it with theft, but you'd make a poor argument. It's typical for licensing and other contracts to include provisions for minimums (in either direction, depending on who the bigger company is). Spotify isn't paying for an inventory of 1000 plays to give to its users, it has licensed the songs for unlimited (I assume) use within the platform from the publihers. Artist streaming payouts are a small line item in the contract. > manufacturer not being paid for the first 1,000 candy bars sold at a grocery store This happens, in any case. People set up deals with grocery stores for 100k units. The store changes its mind. You're left with a huge inventory to either sell to them at a discount or find a new buyer.
- UncleMeat 3y agoMy wife is a professor in a field where they regularly publish books. "Zero royalties for the first N copies sold" appears to be common in the academic publishing contract world. It's a mess.
- buffington 3y agoI wrote a programming book back when tech books were a thing you had to go physically buy from a physical store (more than 20 years ago now). The publisher sent advanced royalties, which was money that was mine, free and clear (it wasn't a small amount either - certainly enough to compete with a full time salary for similar time commitment and knowledge/skills needed). I wouldn't see any more royalties until I'd sold enough to equal what my advance was. If I never sold enough, then I wouldn't see any new money - the original advance was still mine. I did end up seeing royalty checks, though not until the book was translated from English to Italian. For some reason, it sold comparatively well in Italian, pushing me over the threshold to earn royalities. The one actual royalty check I saw for my book was a grand total of $0.02. I never cashed the check and keep it in a desk drawer somewhere.
- consf 2y agoIt's actually really pitty to hear. I think there are authors who contribute valuable research and knowledge to their fields and still not able to get royalties...
- UncleMeat 2y agoIt is worse than that. We will pay thousands of dollars out of our own pockets for tasks like editing, proofing, and indexing.
- nazka 2y agoI mean all financial risks are on the publisher side since he has to print some books with his own money and be sure it can get some money back if it doesn’t sell.
- NBJack 3y agoSteam does something similar for indie publishers. Unless you reach $100 in sales, you will not receive a check.
- rmdes 3y agoFeels like Spotify is restructuring systemic issues instead of trying to solve them. It's almost amazing how little, since the advent of Internet, the music industry changed, it did change, for established names more than small artist but the fundamental issue remains the same : fair & stable redistribution of value generated from artists.
- consf 2y ago[dead]