I have to say I’m a bit worried he’s banking on receiving unlimited access to an insane level of surveillance data to use in the the $50B digital prison he’s building in Louisiana
Jeff Landry’s Intelligence Chief is Spying on New Orleans with Project NOLA
Louisiana’s use of NDAs in AI data center push raises questions over transparency
Bad uses and implementations of AI is being reversed and also being reclaimed by people-owned open source alternatives which is good
However, robotics needs way more done to be put back into peoples hands, and also to have more people-owned alternatives to become industry standards (same should be done for people-owned ai to be industry standards)
Lots to do but we got this and decent amount of people are doing for both AI and Robotics to make it for us and not for those who wish to shit on us all
Facebook’s AI auto summarizer that it passes to Google et al, is currently rewriting The National’s reporting of Rod Liddle’s death to say “he dies of alcoholism, suicide or cancer, a short illness followed by a heart attack”.
As usual, it was without their explicit consent.
Gonna go out on a limb here and say that getting into AI was the best thing Zuckerberg ever did for humanity, specifically the decision to release Llama as open weight (albeit obnoxious license) early on. That was the thing that showed the whole world open weights could work. Even if modern open weight models aren’t direct descendents of Llama, and even if Meta subsequently pivoted to closed weights, that’s still something that shouldn’t be forgotten.
Tragic.
Yeah, it’s getting tough for him to support AI, and FB is declining.
FB seems to dead internet already,(mostly AI bots interacting with other bots.
For those that want to read about the fault of human psyche:
https://technophilosoph.com/en/2024/06/09/why-we-trust-ai-despite-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect/
The popular author Michael Crichton named this effect after his physicist friend Murray Gell-Mann, who had noticed how newspaper readers, for example, after studying an erroneous article on a subject in which they themselves are very knowledgeable, just shake their heads and find the reporting on it distorted, erroneous and lacking in understanding. However, if they then turn the page and read an article on another topic in which they themselves have little knowledge, they trust the information in this article almost without reservation.
Maybe I should just create the new Facebook as well
Drop the ‘the’, just call it ‘new facebook’. Thank me later.
Ah, the old American naming convention
It’s all about networks. It’s not creating platforms that’s hard, it’s getting people to use them.
A good product and marketing strategy can bootstrap an audience. You likely need to provide something beyond just a phone book. Even outside of Facebook there’s a million of those but getting an audience for a new product is far from impossible, tons of new games do it all the time.
The numbers are staggering. A game is incomparable. Facebook has over 3 billion users and instagram has another 2.5. Even a game like Fortnite “only” has a bit over 600 million users, and the vast majority of games see nowhere near that
You can bootstrap an audience in the millions, maybe, with a lot of luck, but getting to meta numbers takes significant capital to sustain your advertising. More importantly even with that it will still take ages. Facebook took almost a decade to get to a billion. Reddit took 18 years
Both platforms (and twitter, etc) are obviously infested with bots but what’s interesting is that from some research it appears the percentage of user accounts that are bots are far lower than many guess. I’ve seen people guess like 50+%. Per Facebook it’s more like 4-5%, and while Reddit doesn’t disclose based on content removal the numbers are similar (possibly slightly lower). This is definitely underreported though as it’s in their best interest to inflate user counts. Independent research pegs it closer to 20%. But the really interesting part is what validates the people guessing 50+%, which is user activity. Neither network comments on this but independent research pegs bots as responsible for like 50-70% of user activity.
So if you can get a network going with power users you can make it feel much more alive with possibly only 30% of the user base. But that’s where the staggering numbers come in. For Facebook that’s still 900 million people, almost 3x the entire population of america
I think you can start with niches or regional groups, they then start inviting others in.
WhatsApp and Discord basically had to bootstrap themselves and did it through niches and meeting a clear market need but we’re then bought up by Facebook. There were plenty of group chat competitors and voice chat competitors.
It is super hard! However we should not give up just because it is hard or not possible. Anything is possible with right determination
We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because we thought they would be easy.
We shouldn’t give up, but not everything that is possible happens, so just be aware that most ventures fail. But of course keep trying. Like with Lemmy.
I hope that the whole facebook downfall and the inevitable enshitification of other facebook servies like instagram und whatsapp only accelerates the adoption of better alternatives, we’ll see if people are actually willing to leave whatsapp if its gotten bad enough
When you say better alternatives I suspect you do not mean a better town square?
I actually don’t mind this concept of a „town square“, but I think that it doesn’t work with so many people all just shouting into the void. The best form of social media seems to be this Reddit/lemmy forum style with categoriesed conversations in sub spaces
I agree. Micro-blogging was always bad, even in the early Twitter days. The people that used it back then and yearn for an equivalent now are the most opinionated, self-absorbed wankers online.
I hope so too, but I’m not holding my breath. People keep showing that critical thinking is an old paradigm that most of humanity is unwilling to interact with. In short, not happening! 🤣
critical thinking is an old paradigm that most of humanity is unwilling to interact with
Critical thinking is a mechanism for digesting large amounts of information over time, in order to make informed policy decisions.
If you don’t have useful information, you don’t have spare time, and you don’t have any actual input into policy, it lacks value.
I see folks consistently trying to make this an individualist problem. “I figured it out because I think critical! You didn’t because you’re a dumb-dumb!”
But more often than not, it’s two people talking past each other, working off different bodies of data (of debatable quality) that they’ve incompletely digested. And then all they know how to do with their conclusions is yell “You’re an idiot!” at people who disagree.
How do you reach large numbers of people to form a consensus? How do you collaborate with them towards a tangible benefit?
Curiously enough, Facebook used to provide a mechanism for this purpose. And the fact that it doesn’t anymore - that it is largely a trap for weak, confused, vulnerable people to scream at one another while they get scammed - speaks more to the profit engine of the service than the core competency of any of its members
I believe a lot of these people had the right idea at the right time but are by no means a good judge for these kinds of things. And should not in the least bit believe everything they touch turns to gold. You were FaceBook, you did good once. Enjoy your money and just stop.
greed by money can lead to infinity of chase happiness that they will never touch repeat the cycle until major diversion (usually lose everything) also you are correct as altman was going to be fired by cofounders for his malice had the timing didn’t hit it’s worst causing employees to almost leave to microsoft had they didn’t hire him and fired themself and you know why did empolyees were doing this because they were gonna lose money that was tied to altman which is gonna be their biggest mistake cause in exchange of temporary wealth they sold themself and everyone into a resession making there wealth from $ to 0
Would you be kind enough to rephrase your post in a way that even us, non-(whateverthatwas)-speaking individuals, can potentially make out what you said?
I’ll give it a go. It’s not that terrible, just mostly a lack of punctuation.
Being greedy for money can lead to infinite time spent chasing happiness that they will never obtain. The cycle repeats until something happens to stop it - usually they lose everything.
Your comment is spot on - Altman was going to be fired by cofounders for his malice. [I’m a little unsure here and didn’t pay attentio to Almatn’s difficulties, but I think the point is that he screwed up to the point of driving Microsoft employees away, but he stepped away rather than being fired. Employees were pushing for this because if they left, they would have lost money [vested, I assume] so in exchange for trying to protect thier wealth, they put up with Altman and that was a mistake. Also that contributed to recession that is going to hurt everyone’s wealth]
I believe that’s the gist. Granted, as it went on, it got a bit worse, but I think we can get much of the basic idea, which I think boils down to asshats seeking money at the cost of everything else will always contribute to everyone being hurt.
I think… I think I’m having a stroke. Am I having a stronk? Sbrbjfufjjdks
Call the bondulance!
Sbrbjfufjjdks
Yrs, yor hrbbing stronk, plz cal amabulace
:)
Who, Mark? He wrote a creepy stalker website a few dozen years ago. Congrats?
He wrote a creepy stalker website that became the foundation for a massive network of college educated socialites to communicate.
And then he sold their conversations to marketing firms and intelligence services.
Never interrupt your enemy while he’s making a mistake.
Keep it up, Mark. You’re doing great.
Zuck can only be interrupted into making an even bigger mistake, so no need to hold back.
Good, good - keep going, Mark.
Becoming a billionaire really does seem to get to people’s heads, the younger the billionaire the worse.
Zuck is being completely reckless, burning through hundreds of billions of dollars hopping on every futuristic idea, and doesn’t listen to anyone’s fair criticism anymore.
He probably even thinks he is some great visionary and everyone else is holding him back, and that’s why they work for him, not the opposite.
In a sane socioeconomic system we wouldn’t people get this rich and powerful for their own good, especially young people.
Yeah, this unfortunately
Billionaires should not exist
In a sane socioeconomic system there would still be a chance for him to lose it all
In a sane system, he wouldn’t have so much to lose.
But he’s sitting on a functional monopoly bolted onto a surveillance state with infinite money. So he can keep fucking up forever.
But it is better he spends the money than hoarding it.
Not when he’s spending it on creating the Torment Nexus.
Why so? Hoarding money, as well as burning them, is practically equivalent to returning them to the treasury. Spending them wastes labour.
Spending them wastes labour.
Uh, this sounds as shallow as driponomics arguments.
Is that his real name!? I thought it is Fart Fuckerber
Zucc the Cuck.
At least he didn’t have to spend all that money on higher salaries. How you boys liking the rocket game? I’m thinking about blowing a few dozen billion on that, just as a hobby. Not trying to make money off it.
