While that’s true, it clearly worked and massive channels used it. So why is YouTube’s avoiding any responsibility and trying to kill it as quickly and silently as possible? Like, I get that sometimes you’ll have to drop support for things (even things you unofficially support), but there should be a phase out period during which people can either backup and re-upload videos with those captions to preserve them. They could and should honestly provide a heads up for that or even help them out.

Now they are literally decimating people’s hard work and on top of that pissing off actual partners. Not saying it will be successful, but cutting into people’s business like that is the kind of thing you can get sued over. So it doesn’t even make sense to take that risk from what we know.

This isn’t a conspiracy, nor a secret, and nobody is claiming it is. It’s just psychology for the sake of profit maximization, which literally every company that likes to make a profit participates in. Why are you winding yourself up so much over something so uncontroversial?

You should go work in retail for a year or two, because then you will know this isn’t exactly uncommon knowledge and even the people stocking the shelves know about it. Hell people that understand psychology need to shop too, so they know it too as they move through the store. If it’s a conspiracy to you, that says more about you than anybody else.

I think that’s a good way to put it. You can’t do much about someone else crashing into you (Unless your husband is Mr Incredible), but you can do a whole lot more when selling/buying something to/from a stranger to avoid that turning nasty.

Which is the stupid part, because the peace prize was her only leverage. It’s pretty clear she’s purely trying to play the book of appeasing him to get him help her, but failed to actually secure that part in some under the table quid pro quo.

Now Trump gets to pick and choose between two people that are willing to sell out their country to appease him, except one is actually in control of said country while the other handed him a peace prize (her only leverage) and hoped for him to ‘do the right thing’.

Unfortunately the committee can’t rescind it (by their own rules), just like she can’t transfer it to Trump, but only one of those two cares about upholding truth and value.

You are not everyone. It doesnt have to work on everyone to be effective. And at the end if you want to reject it or not, it’s there, you can read up on it if you didnt already make up your mind. For grocery stores, ignoring the science is playing with large sums of money, so they do care.

EDIT: I’ll give you a start: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950329318302374

Or if you want a video with sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL8pVOe_8zQ

EDIT2: One of the papers also mentions this:

Although the marketing systems and displays within grocery stores were comparable between the United States (US) and Switzerland, the Swiss system was found to exhibit fewer profit-based marketing tactics. Moreover, strategies that are used in Switzerland were found to be less forceful

So you should also take into account that you may simply live in a place that doesn’t push these tactics too hard. But that is irrelevant to if they work or not.

An important feature is that you can basically download (and thus, own) the music you pay for (in many formats too).

You really should look into it more (it’s not a secret if you look for it) because OP is right. Yes, they’re selling thousands of things BUT they’re also designing that space to make you take as long as possible to get through it. The answer for why that is, is simple. People buy more. You don’t have to have an “issue” navigating with it, because you just don’t notice if you spend 5 minutes more walking through the place. If it was so egregious to be noticed easily by people, they would stop coming and the benefit evaporates. So it’s a balance.

It’s not even that, grocery stores bake bread and spread bread smell since it perks people up and makes them more willing to spend, play specific music that calms and soothes you so you’ll walk slower. When you walk into a grocery store, you are walking through a highly specialized environment to maximize profits.

I think you might misunderstood what Bandcamp is aiming for here. They’re explicitly trying to still allow it when humans are using it (responsibly) as tools. This is essentially a ban on AI where no human is involved (or not involved enough), where the music produced is focused on quantity over quality (slop). That’s a fine and nuanced distinction for a music distribution platform in my opinion.

I doubt they would just blanket scan all music and ban that which they think is AI (aside from how that’s practically impossible). That’s the kind of thing a lazy big tech company would do. I wouldn’t be surprised if this will just end up being on a report basis, at the very least with human verification once steps like banning would be taken. Because otherwise it would be pretty disastrous for the reasons you mentioned, since it would ban legitimate artists. Not to mention the bar of “substantially AI” would need to be judged by someone.

Ah, no worries, none taken. Have a good one.

Not quite sure what you’re trying to say. The article literally says:

Bandcamp’s policy targets the latter end of that spectrum while leaving room for human artists who incorporate AI tools into a larger creative process.

Which is what I’m applauding and affirming, so I’m not sure what you’re saying I’m saying is opposite to what the article says.

Good on them on recognizing that slop is undesirable and shouldn’t be encouraged, but that a full ban also kills the nuance of creative freedom and creates painful situations where a single AI tool anywhere in the process (even indirectly) gets hard work rejected, which could hamper aspiring creatives in their ability to (start to) get their work out there and (start to) make a living when they are not what (most) people have issue with.

That’s pretty interesting. And I totally agree with your last part. One counterpoint I would have is that local models are often more efficient though, and there’s very little checking you can do on how much your query actually costs in the cloud, while using it at home you can monitor your GPU usage and your power bill, and that information creates a sense of responsibility if you overuse it, like the amount of gas station stops a 10 hour joyride would require. But yeah at the end of the day using it as little as possible is a good habit.

It does not but that wasn’t my point. It was that not all forms of AI usage are the same. The same way someone driving around an EV that they charge with solar power isn’t the same as someone driving a 1969 oil guzzler (or something equivalent). Local usage more often than not means efficient models, low energy consumption, and little difference to other computer tasks like gaming or video editing. But when the conversation is around AI, there is always the implicit expectation that it’s the worst of the worst.

The existence of offline models highlights a nuance that some people deny even exists though, causing people to talk around one another. I wish it would be more widely acknowledged, as it would make some conversations around AI easier.

I agree with you, but if you measure the width of the dress at the tip of her fingers, the left and right are about 99-100 pixels, while the middle one is 105 pixels wide. Her face in all three images is about 38-39 pixels wide (measured at the earlobe), so that rules out they stretched the entire image slightly. But 5 pixels is significant enough to kind of muddy the validity of the OP’s message since it no longer rules out all but the appearance of the dress. It sadly happens that sometimes effects are exaggerated, even when there is a real effect at play.

You forgot the strikethrough for the four panels :.|:;