Exactly, thinking that is what I was getting pulled me over the edge, I sometimes remember a music video I want to listen to on my phone during my commute and I don’t want to spend 30 minutes either getting on my PC to download it with a tool, or using a third party downloader which can at times be shady. So upgrading that to a single click in the app seemed like a great deal. Crushingly disappointed when I found out how it actually was. Turns out the real answer was NewPipe, which I don’t even have to pay for.

Yeah, I thought it was a nice compromise. It seemed sensible that if Premium is the ‘compliant’ response to not wanting ads, the ‘compliant’ response to using third party tools to download videos was to just be able to do things more easily and with more options through Premium as well. But apparently they wanted to advertise something anyone who’s wanted to download a youtube video would not describe as ‘downloading’, which is easily out competed by free (but at times shady) tools.

I get that. It would be totally fine if it just gave the option. But yes the issue is more egregious on PC.

I like those perks too, but if I pay more to be able to download videos (which again, I could’ve used a free tool for) I want to be able to do whatever I want with it. Download means getting a file I can watch using my own video player and store for later even if Youtube dies tomorrow, If I go on holiday without internet, or if my internet goes down for a week. Anything.

If Google is going to be “Uhm aksually, you are technically downloading it, thats why we can advertise it like that”, then I’m already downloading literally every video I watch. And thats not the kind of bullshit you give to a paying customer. That is spitting in my face for paying you. Why does a non-Premium user get better service with free third party youtube downloaders?

It’s a matter of principle.

I gave Premium a shot. Then the one time I wanted to use the feature Google said I was paying for - being able to download videos - I found out that it was just a glorified pre-buffer.

• Can’t view the video outside the youtube app or the website, source video file encrypted ✅️
• Can’t view the video if you havent connected to the internet in 3 days ✅️
• Does less than your average youtube downloader that you can find for free with one search ✅️
• Literally just saving Youtube bandwidth because they destroyed every benefit you would get if it was actually reasonable ✅️

Enshittification isnt just limited to free users folks. Slammed that cancellation button right then and there. Good luck earning back my trust, I’m happy to pay if you didnt scream so loudly that even if I paid, you were going to treat me like shit anyways.

You can certainly try to use the power as much as possible, or sell the energy to a country with a deficit. But the problem is that you would still need to invest a lot of money to make sure the grid can handle the excess if you build renewables to cover 100% of the grid demand for now and in the future. Centralized fuel sources require much less grid changes because it flows from one place and spreads from there, so infrastructure only needs to be improved close to the source. Renewables as decentralized power sources requires the grid to be strengthened anywhere they are placed, and often that is not practical, both in financial costs and in the engineers it takes to actually do that.

Would it be preferable? Yes. Would it happen before we already need to be fully carbon neutral? Often not.

I’d refer you to my other post about the situation in my country. We have a small warehouse of a few football fields which stores the highest radioactivity of unusable nuclear fuel, and still has more than enough space for centuries. The rest of the fuel is simply re-used until it’s effectively regular waste. The time to build two new nuclear reactors here also costs only about 10 years, not 20.

Rather continue with wind and solar and then batteries for the money.

All of these things should happen regardless of nuclear progress. And they do happen. But again, building renewables isn’t just about the price.

Some personal thoughts: My own country (The Netherlands) has despite a very vocal anti-nuclear movement in the 20th century completely flipped now to where the only parties not in favor of Nuclear are the Greens, who at times quote the fear as a reason not to do it. As someone who treats climate change as truly existential for our country that lies below projected sea levels, it makes them look unreasonable and not taking the issue seriously. We have limited land too, and a housing crisis on top of it. So land usage is a big pain point for renewables, and even if the land is unused, it is often so close to civilization that it does affect people’s feelings of their surroundings when living near them, which might cause renewables to not make it as far as it could unrestricted. A nuclear reactor takes up fractions of the space, and can be relatively hidden from people.

All the other parties who heavily lean in to combating climate change at least acknowledge nuclear as an option that should (and are) being explored. And even the more climate skeptical parties see nuclear as something they could stand behind. Having broad support for certain actions is also important to actually getting things done. Our two new nuclear powered plants are expected to be running by 2035. Only ten years from now, ahead of our climate goals to be net-zero in 2040.

People are kind of missing the point of the meme. The point is that Nuclear is down there along with renewables in safety and efficiency. It’s lacking the egregious cover up in the original meme, even if it has legitimate concerns now. And due to society’s ever increasing demand for electricity, we will heavily benefit from having a more scalable solution that doesn’t require covering and potentially disrupting massive amounts of land before their operations can be scaled up to meet extraordinary demand. Wind turbines and solar panels don’t stop working when we can’t use their electricity either, so it’s not like we can build too many of them or we risk creating complications out of peak hours. Many electrical networks aren’t built to handle the loads. A nuclear reactor can be scaled down to use less fuel and put less strain on the electrical network when unneeded.

It should also be said that money can’t always be spent equally everywhere. And depending on the labor required, there is also a limit to how manageable infrastructure is when it scales. The people that maintain and build solar panels, hydro, wind turbines, and nuclear, are not the same people. And if we acknowledge that climate change is an existential crisis, we must put our eggs in every basket we can, to diversify the energy transition. All four of the safest and most efficient solutions we have should be tapped into. But nuclear is often skipped because of outdated conceptions and fear. It does cost a lot and takes a while to build, but it fits certain shapes in the puzzle that none of the others do as well as it does.

The thing is, games have a minimum difficulty to be somewhat generally enjoyable, and the game designers have often built their game around this. The fun is generally in the obstacles providing real resistance that can be overcome by optimizing your strategy. It means that these obstacles need to be mentally picked apart by the player to proceed. They are built like puzzles.

This design philosophy - anyone who plays these games can tell you - is deeply rewarding if you go through it, because it requires genuine improvement that you can notice and be proud of. Hence why there is often a limit to how much easier you can make games like these without losing that because you forget the obstacle before even realizing it was preventing you from doing something.

It’s often not as easy as just tweaking numbers. And often these development teams don’t have the time to rebalance a game for those lower difficulties, so they just don’t.

Honestly, the first wojack could be quite mad too, because often making an easy game harder also misses the point, where the game is just more difficult, but doesn’t actually provide you with that carefully crafted feeling of constant improvement. Instead some easy games can become downright frustrating because obstacles feel “cheap” or “lacking depth” now that you have to spend a lot more time on them.

But making an easy game harder by just tweaking the numbers is definitely easier on the development team, and gives existing players a chance to re-experience the game, which wouldn’t happen the other way around. But it’s almost certainly not a better option for new players wanting a harder difficulty.

At the end of the day though, often there are ways to get what you want. Either by cheating, modding, or otherwise using ‘OP’ usables in the game. Do whatever you want to make the game more enjoyable to yourself. But if you make it too easy on yourself you might come out on the other end wondering why other people enjoyed the game so much more than you did.

Perhaps. The world can use more kindness when despite everything, loneliness is at an all time high. It’s not a fix but maybe it can be a brake on someone’s downwards spiral.

I’d prefer and love to see someone new match George Carlin’s level too though, much more than someone trying to become him. I dont think we’ve quite had a chance to savor the good side of AI yet, but hey you’re entitled to your opinion.

That’s a pretty sloppy reason. A nuanced topic is not well suited to be explained in anything but descriptive language. Especially if you care about people’s livelihoods and passion. I care about my artist friends, colleagues, and acquaintances. Hence I will support them in securing their endeavors in this changing landscape.

Artists are largely not computer experts and artists using AI are buying Microsoft or Adobe or using freebies and pondering paid upgrades. They are also renting rather than buying because everything’s a subscription service now.

I really don’t like this characterization of artists. They are not dumb nor incapable of learning. Technical artists exist too. Installing open source AI is relatively easy. Pretty much down to pressing a button. And because it’s open source, it’s free. Using them to it’s fullest effect is where the skill goes, and the artists I know are more than happy to develop their skills.

A far bigger market for AI is for non-artists and scammers to fill up Amazon’s bookstore and the broader Internet full of more trash than it already was.

The existence of bad usage of AI does not invalidate good usage of AI. The internet was already full of bad content before AI. The good stuff is what floats to the top. No sane person is going to pay to read some no name AI generated trash. But people will read a highly regarded book that just happened to be AI assisted.

But the whole premise is silly. Did we demonize cars because bank robbers started using them to escape the police? Did we demonize cameras because people could take exact photo copies of someone else’s work? No. We demonized those that misused the tool. AI is no different.

A scammer can generate thousands of garbage images and text without worth, before an artist being assisted by AI can make a single work. Just like a burglar can make more money easily by breaking into someone’s house and stealing all their money compared to working a day job for a month. There’s a reason these things are illegal and/or unethical. But those are reflections of the people doing this, not the things they use.

I mean, you ignored the entire rest of my comment to respond only to a hyperbole to illustrate that something is a bad argument. I’m sure they are making money off it, but small creators and artists can relatively make more money off it. And you claim that is not ‘actually happening’. But that is your opinion, how you view things. I talk with artists daily, and they use AI when it’s convenient to them, when it saves them work or allows them to focus on work they actually like. Just like how they use any other tool to their disposal.

I know there are some very big name artists on social media who are making a fuss about this stuff, but I highly question their motives with my point of view in mind. Of course it makes sense for someone with a big social media following to rally up their supporters so they can get a payday. I regularly see them speak complete lies to their followers, and of course it works. When you actually talk to artists in real life, you’ll get a far more nuanced response.

Well then we agree. Lets leave ridiculous arguments out of it. There are far better arguments to make.

I don’t disagree with that, but such differences can matter when it comes to ruling if imitation and parody are allowed, and to what extent.

The court might rule in favor of his estate for this reason. But honestly, I do think there are differences to a singer (whose voice becomes an instrument in their song) and a comedian (whose voice is used to communicate the ideas and jokes they want to tell). A different voice could tell the same jokes as Carlin, and if done with the same level of care to communicate his emotions and cadence, could effectively create the same feeling as we know it. A song could literally be a different song if you swap an instrument. But the courts will have to rule.

There’s another thing here which is that you seem to believe this was actually made in large part by an AI while simultaneously stating the motivations of humans. So which is it?

AI assisted works are, funnily enough, mostly a human production at this point. If you asked AI to make another George Carlin special for you, it would suck extremely hard. AI requires humans to succeed, it does not succeed at being human. And as such, it’s a human work at the end of the day. My opinion is that if we were being truthful, this comedy special would likely be considered AI assisted rather than fully AI generated.

You seem really sure that I think this is fully (or largely) AI generated, but that’s never been a question I answered or alluded to believing before. I don’t believe that. I don’t even believe fully AI generated works to be worthy of being called true art. AI assisted works on the other hand, I do believe to be art. AI is a tool, and for it to be used for art it requires humans to provide input and humans to make decisions for it to be something that people will actually enjoy. And that is clearly what was done here.

The primary beneficiary of all of the AI hype is Microsoft. Secondary beneficiary is Nvidia. These aren’t tiny companies.

“The primary beneficiaries of art hype are pencil makers, brush makers, canvas makers, and of course, Adobe for making photoshop, Samsung and Wacom for making drawing tablets. Not to mention the art investors selling art from museums and art galleries all over the world for millions. These aren’t tiny entities.”

See how ridiculous it is to make that argument? If something is popular, people and companies who are in a prime position to make money off it will try to do so, that is to be expected under our capitalist society. But small artists and small creators get the most elevation by the advance of open source AI. Big companies can already push out enough money to bring any work they create to the highest standards. A small creator cannot, but they can get far more, and far better results by using AI in their workflow. And because small creators often put far more heart and soul into their works, it allows them to compete with giants more easily. A clear win for small creators and artists.

Just to be extra clear: I don’t like OpenAI. I don’t like Microsoft. I don’t like Nvidia to a certain degree. Open Source AI is not their piece of cake. They like proprietary, closed source AI. The kind where only they and the people that pay them get to use the advancements AI has made. That disgusts me. Open Source AI is the tool of choice for ethical AI.

You’re right, South Park doesnt need it either. But a disclaimer removes all doubt. The video doesnt need a disclaimer either, but they made it anyways to remove all doubt. And no, they disclaimed any notion that they are George Carlin. Admitting to a crime in a disclaimer is not what it said, that much should be obvious.

A complete false equivalence. Just because improper disclaimers exist, doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate reasons to use them. Impersonation requires intent, and a disclaimer is an explicit way to make it clear that they are not attempting to do that, and to explicitly make it clear to viewers who might have misunderstood. It’s why South Park has such a text too at the start of every episode. It’s a rather fool proof way to illegitimize any accusation of impersonation.

Healthy or not, my lived experience is that assuming people are motivated by the things people are typically motivated by (e.g. greed, the desire for fame) is more often correct than assuming people have pure motives.

Everyone likes praise to a certain extent, and desiring recognition for what you’ve made is independent from your intentions otherwise. My personal experience working with talented creative people is that the two are often intertwined. If you can make something that’s both fulfilling and economically sustainable, that’s what you’ll do. You can make something that’s extremely fulfilling, but if it doesn’t appeal to anyone but yourself, it doesn’t pay the bills. I’m not saying it’s not possible for them to not have that motivation, but in my opinion anyone ascribed to be malicious must be to some point proven to be that way. I have seen no such proof.

I really understand your second point but… as with many things, some things require consent and some things don’t. Making a parody or an homage doesn’t (typically) require that consent. It would be nice to get it, but the man is dead and even his children cannot speak for him other than as legal owners of his estate. I personally would like to believe he wouldn’t care one bit, and I would have the same basis as anyone else to defend that, because nobody can ask a dead man for his opinions. It’s clear his children do not like it, but unless they have a legal basis for that it can be freely dismissed as not being something George would stand behind.

I’ve watched pretty much every one of his shows, but I haven’t seen that documentary. I’ll see if I can watch it. But knowing George, he would have many words to exchange on both sides of the debate. The man was very much an advocate for freedom of creativity, but also very much in favor of artist protection. Open source AI has leveled the playing field for people that aren’t mega corporations to compete, but has also brought along insecurity and anxiety to creative fields. It’s not black and white.

In fact, there is a quote attributed to him which sort of speaks on this topic. (Although I must admit, the original source is of a defunct newspaper and the wayback machine didn’t crawl the article)

[On his work appearing on the Internet] It’s a conflicted feeling. I’m really a populist, down in the very center of me. I like the power people can accrue for themselves, and I like the idea of user-generated content and taking power from the corporations. The other half of the conflict, though, is that, traditionally speaking, artists are protected from copyright infringement. Fortunately, I don’t have to worry about solving this issue. It’s someone else’s job.

August 9, 2007 in Las Vegas CityLife. So just a little less than a year before his death too.

EDIT: Minor clarification

Completely true. But we cannot reasonably push the responsibility of the entire internet onto someone when they did their due diligence.

Like, some people post CoD footage to youtube because it looks cool, and someone else either mistakes or malicious takes that and recontextualizes it to being combat footage from active warzones to shock people. Then people start reposting that footage with a fake explanation text on top of it, furthering the misinformation cycle. Do we now blame the people sharing their CoD footage for what other people did with it? Misinformation and propaganda are something society must work together on to combat.

If it really matters, people would be out there warning people that the pictures being posted are fake. In fact, even before AI that’s what happened after tragedy happens. People would post images claiming to be of what happened, only to later be confirmed as being from some other tragedy. Or how some video games have fake leaks because someone rebranded fanmade content as a leak.

Eventually it becomes common knowledge or easy to prove as being fake. Take this picture for instance:

It’s been well documented that the bottom image is fake, and as such anyone can now find out what was covered up. It’s up to society to speak up when the damage is too great.