Now if you're a low memory persistence, medium IQ dopamine addict, you may actually get a lot of AI slop in your feed. As in actual slop, not the good stuff. Because that's what you actually like watching in short term, and then your low memory persistence means you fail to recognize it in before enough of the next video is watched by you so that algorithm assumes you'll click on the next one too. Which it is correct in assuming, as your low memory persistence will get you to click on it again and again.

And just because you hate yourself for liking AI slop, doesn't mean that youtube has a problem with AI slop. It's a "you" problem, not a "youTUBE" problem.

What we need to do is focus on the value of the work created by a worker, and then can we leverage AI to produce the same amount of work for less hours of the person's time, giving that person more hours to their life but the same amount of pay.

The only item you mentioned that deserves derision is the CD player.

who was CEO of Home Depot for 7 years, didn't move the stock price at all, resigned and triggered a $210M golden parachute.

[M]arkets do not prioritize innovation, or sustainable growth, or stable, profitable enterprises. As a result, companies regularly do not function with the intent of making “good” businesses - they want businesses that semiotically align with what investors - private and public - believe to be “good”....

Venture capitalists are regularly incentivized to create businesses that look valuable but aren’t necessarily of value.... the path is always the same - growth, growth, growth, legitimization, growth, growth, acquisition, and then an eventual reckoning with real life....

As my friend Kasey put it in a recent conversation, growth is a fire. If you build a nice, sustainable fire, it’ll keep you warm, cook food and sustain life. And if the only thing you care about is how big your fire is, then it’ll set fire to everything around it, and the more you throw into it, the more it’ll burn. Eventually, you’ll have nothing left, but if you desperately desire that fire, you will constantly have to find new things to burn at any cost.

And we, societally, have turned our markets and businesses - private and public - over to arsonists. We have created conditions where we celebrate people for making “big” companies but not “good” companies.

Venture capital and the public markets don’t actually reward or respect “good” businesses or “good” CEOs - they reward people that can steer the kind of growth that raises the value of an asset....

The consequences are that these companies will continue to invest in things that grow the overall revenue of the company over all else. They will mass-hire and mass-fire, because there are no consequences when the markets don’t really care as long as the company itself stays valuable. Venture capitalists certainly don’t mind - after all, it’s “less burn” to “get you through” tough climates that were arguably created by the poor hiring decisions of a company that was never incentivized to hire sustainably or operate profitably.

Anyone holding growth stock knows that there will come a day when those stocks will transition, in an eyeblink, from being undervalued to being grossly overvalued, and that when that day comes, there will be a mass sell-off. If you're still holding the stock when that happens, you stand to lose bigtime....

That's where these growth-at-all-stakes maneuvers bent on capturing an adjacent sector come from.... Google is an especially grievous offender here. Familiar buttons in Gmail, Gdocs, and the Android message apps have been replaced with AI-summoning fatfinger traps. Android is filled with these pitfalls – for example, the bottom-of-screen swipe gesture used to switch between open apps now summons an AI, while ridding yourself of that AI takes multiple clicks.... they must convince investors that their AI offerings are "getting traction."

First, replace Anthropic's CEO.

Whipple eventually fires all his human employees after replacing them with machines, which then turn on him by spitting out the harsh demeaning recorded parting words of his former employees back at him over and over, driving Whipple to insanity. Eventually, the board of directors find him neurotically obsessed with machines and retire him...

The last scene reveals Whipple's replacement to be a robot (Robby the Robot), which swings Whipple's key on a chain the same way he used to.

A derivative work that does not interfere with the commercial exploitation of the original is one of the major categories of fair use, even if the derivative work is commercially exploited. To run afoul of copyright, a substantial portion text needs to actually be reproduced.

Style cannot be protected by copyright—it is not a product; to litigate against human imitators, complainants need to prove there is some attempt to trade on an association with the original. For example, when Scarlett Johansson went after OpenAI for the Her-imitation voice, Skye, she was able to demonstrate that Sam Altman tweeted "her" and that she'd turned down an offer to supply her voice previously. Similarly, companies have gotten in trouble for hiring imitators to perform sound-alike songs in TV commercials when the original performers and songwriters turned them down.

In general, when an LLM produces something specific, it's because it was told to do so. ChatGPT will happily regurgitate Bible verses, for example. Only when there is a single clear way to respond to user input will you see obvious copying. The often-spouted misinformation that they're just blindly regurgitating things they've been fed previously is the result of not understanding the technology. Except in the case of fine-tune datasets being used for retrieval-augmented generation, the authors of training data have no more claim to the AI's output than the authors of the books you read have a claim to your own thoughts.

A derivative work that does not interfere with the commercial exploitation of the original is one of the major categories of fair use, even if the derivative work is commercially exploited. To run afoul of copyright, a substantial portion text needs to actually be reproduced.

Style cannot be protected by copyright—it is not a product; to litigate against human imitators, complainants need to prove there is some attempt to trade on an association with the original. For example, when Scarlett Johansson went after OpenAI for the Her-imitation voice, Skye, she was able to demonstrate that Sam Altman tweeted "her" and that she'd turned down an offer to supply her voice previously. Similarly, companies have gotten in trouble for hiring imitators to perform sound-alike songs in TV commercials when the original performers and songwriters turned them down.

In general, when an LLM produces something specific, it's because it was told to do so. ChatGPT will happily regurgitate Bible verses, for example. Only when there is a single clear way to respond to user input will you see obvious copying. The often-spouted misinformation that they're just blindly regurgitating things they've been fed previously is the result of not understanding the technology. Except in the case of fine-tune datasets being used for retrieval-augmented generation, the authors of training data have no more claim to the AI's output than the authors of the books you read have a claim to your own thoughts.

Thankfully, our President was formerly a professor who lectured on Constitutional law. I'm sure he's going to sort this one out for us ASAP.