The general idea that somebody who works a lot of hours is a good/hard worker in contrast to the amount of work actually completed.
They cry about not being able to serve ads while serving ads that are straight malware and scams. It’s especially funny when a platform goes out of their way to censor (suppress ad revenue) on videos which have even a chance of being misinformation and then proceed to play back to back ads of somebody selling their get rich quick webinar.
Wait… so the author displayed in “by ” is the supposed author of the software, not the one that put it on the store? That’s insane! Also sounds like you’d be open to massive liability since the reputation of the software author will be damaged if somebody publishes malware under their name.
It should be:
Soooo…. the work of self-hosting with none of the benefits? It sounds like this has all the core problems of Twitter.
Damn! Using .af for a LGBT+ site is insane! The country could have redirected the domain to their own servers and started learning the personal details of those on the site who I imagine wouldn’t be terribly thrilled having an anti-LGBT+ government learn their personal information (namely information not displayed publicly). Specifically, they could put their own servers in front of the domain so they can decrypt it, then forward the traffic on to the legitimate servers, allowing them to get login information and any other data which the user sends or receives.
A good move!
I’m surprised they didn’t codify “.lan” though since that one is so prevalent.
Other comments have hit this, but one reason is simply to be an extra layer. You won’t always know what software is listening for connections. There are obvious ones like web servers, but less obvious ones like Skype. By rejecting all incoming traffic by default and only allowing things explicitly, you avoid the scenario where you leave something listening by accident.
Sounds like you just volunteered to post Linux news and related content!
Reasons not to buy premium:
steals funny glowing metal thing
Funny glowing metal thing:
Who took a photo of this community?
I have really mixed feelings about this. My stance is that I don’t you should need permission to train on somebody else’s work since that is far too restrictive on what people can do with the music (or anything else) they paid for. This assumes it was obtained fairly: buying the tracks of iTunes or similar and not torrenting them or dumping the library from a streaming service. Of course, this can change if a song it taken down from stores (you can’t buy it) or the price is so high that a normal person buying a small amount of songs could not afford them (say 50 USD a track). Same goes for non-commercial remixing and distribution. This is why I thinking judging these models and services on output is fairer: as long as you don’t reproduce the work you trained on I think that should be fine. Now this needs some exceptions: producing a summary, parody, heavily-changed version/sample (of these, I think this is the only one that is not protected already despite widespread use in music already).
So putting this all together: the AIs mentioned seem to have re-produced partial copies of some of their training data, but it required fairly tortured prompts (I think some even provided lyrics in the prompt to get there) to do so since there are protections in place to prevent 1:1 reproductions; in my experience Suno rejects requests that involve artist names and one of the examples puts spaces between the letters of “Mariah”. But the AIs did do it. I’m not sure what to do with this. There have been lawsuits over samples and melodies so this is at least even handed Human vs AI wise. I’ve seen some pretty egregious copies of melodies too outside remixed and bootlegs to so these protections aren’t useless. I don’t know if maybe more work can be done to essentially Content ID AI output first to try and reduce this in the future? That said, if you wanted to just avoid paying for a song there are much easier ways to do it than getting a commercial AI service to make a poor quality replica. The lawsuit has some merit in that the AI produced replicas it shouldn’t have, but much of this wreaks of the kind of overreach that drives people to torrents in the first place.