I agree that it’s like Apple and Google (I don’t know much about Steam) in that those are obvious price-gouging monopolists.

The difference is that, unlike craigslist, OnlyFans takes a massive 20% cut of all revenue. For comparison, Patreon takes a little more than 5%. Purely from a labor perspective, that’s outrageous, so I do think that it’s fair to demand that they at least do more to justify it, which ought to include protecting the people that actually do the work.

There’s also what’s to me the bigger problem: OnlyFans obviously didn’t invent online sex work, but it did radically reshape it. They are responsible for mainstreaming this patreon-style, girl-next-door porn actress that people expect to interact with on a parasocial level. Those are features that OnlyFans purposefully put in to maximize their own profit, but they seem particularly ripe for the kind of nauseating small-scale abuse that the article discusses in depth. Suddenly, if an abusive partner wants to trap and control someone, there’s a mainstream, streamlined path to making that profitable. Again, OnlyFans didn’t create that, in the same way that Uber didn’t create paying some random person with a car for a ride to the airport, but they did reshape it, systematize it, mainstream it, and profit handsomely off it. Craigslist was just a place to put classifieds, but OnlyFans is a platform that governs every detail of these relationships between creators and fans, down to the font of their DMs. If the way that they’ve built the platform makes this kind of abuse easier, that’s a huge problem.

I agree with you that this article doesn’t do a good job articulating any of this, though.

Jesus yeah that’s a great point re:Musk/Twitter. I’m not sure that it’s true as you wrote it quite yet, but I would definitely agree that it’s, at the very least, an excellent prediction. It might very well be functionally true already as a matter of political economy, but it hasn’t been tested yet by a sufficiently big movement or financial crisis or whatever.

+1 to everything that you said about organizing. It seems that we’re coming to the same realization that many 19th century socialists already had. There are no shortcuts to building power, and that includes going viral on Twitter.

I’ve told this story on the fediverse before, but I have this memory from occupy of when a large news network interviewed my friend, an economist, but only used a few seconds of that interview, but did air the entirety of an interview with a guy who was obviously unwell and probably homeless. Like you, it took me a while after occupy to really unpack in my head what had happened in general, and I often think on that moment as an important microcosm. Not only was it grossly exploitative, but it is actually good that the occupy camps welcomed and fed people like him. That is how our society ought to work. To have it used as a cudgel to delegitimize the entire camp was cynical beyond my comprehension at the time. To this day, I think about that moment to sorta tune the cynicism of the reaction, even to such a frankly ineffectual and disorganized threat as occupy. A meaningful challenge to power had better be ready for one hell of a reaction.

Same, and thanks! We’re probably a similar age. My own political awakening was occupy, and I got interested in theory as I participated in more and more protest movements that just sorta fizzled.

I 100% agree re:Twitter. I am so tired of people pointing out that it has lost 80% of its value or whatever. Once you have a few billion, there’s nothing that more money can do to your material circumstances. Don’t get me wrong, Musk is a dumbass, but, in this specific case, I actually think that he came out on top. That says more about what you can do with infinite money than anything about his tactical genius, because it doesn’t exactly take the biggest brain to decide that you should buy something that seems important.

I actually also reviewed that one, except my review of it was extremely favorable. I’m so glad that you read it and I’d welcome your thoughts on my very friendly amendment to his analysis if you end up reading that post.

Unfortunately, COP28 is taking it seriously, seen here with “both sides” reporting from the NYT.

Very well could be. At this point, I’m so suspicious of all these reports. It feels like trying to figure out what’s happening inside a company while relying only on their ads and PR communications: The only thing that I do know for sure is that everyone involved wants more money and is full of shit.

US Leads World in Credulous Reports of ‘Lagging Behind’ Russia. The American military, its allies, and the various think-tanks it funds, either directly or indirectly, generate these reports to justify forever increasing the military budget.

All these always do the same thing.

Researchers reduced [the task] to producing a plausible corpus of text, and then published the not-so-shocking results that the thing that is good at generating plausible text did a good job generating plausible text.

From the OP , buried deep in the methodology :

Because GPT models cannot interpret images, questions including imaging analysis, such as those related to ultrasound, electrocardiography, x-ray, magnetic resonance, computed tomography, and positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging, were excluded.

Yet here’s their conclusion :

The advancement from GPT-3.5 to GPT-4 marks a critical milestone in which LLMs achieved physician-level performance. These findings underscore the potential maturity of LLM technology, urging the medical community to explore its widespread applications.

It’s literally always the same. They reduce a task such that chatgpt can do it then report that it can do to in the headline, with the caveats buried way later in the text.

Yeah, as always, the devil is in the details. For now I think that we need a simple and clear articulation of the main idea. In the exceedingly unlikely event that it ever gets traction, I look forward to hammering out the many nuances.

It’s not a solution, but as a mitigation, I’m trying to push the idea of an internet right of way into the public consciousness. Here’s the thesis statement from my write-up:

I propose that if a company wants to grow by allowing open access to its services to the public, then that access should create a legal right of way. Any features that were open to users cannot then be closed off so long as the company remains operational. We need an Internet Rights of Way Act, which enforces digital footpaths. Companies shouldn’t be allowed to create little paths into their sites, only to delete them, forcing guests to pay if they wish to maintain access to the networks that they built, the posts that they wrote, or whatever else it is that they were doing there.

As I explain in the link, rights of way already exist for the physical world, so it’s easily explained to even the less technically inclined, and give us a useful legal framework for how they should work.

I don’t really agree with this. It is the answer that I think classical economics would give but I just don’t think it’s useful. For one, it ignores politics. Large corporations also have bought our government, and a few large wealth management funds like vanguard own a de facto controlling share in many public companies, oftentimes including virtually an entire industry, such that competition between them isn’t really incentived as much as financial shenanigans and other Jack Welch style shit.

Some scholars (i think I read this in Adrienne bullers value of a whale, which is basically basis for this entire comment) even argue that we’ve reached a point where it might be more useful to think of our economy as a planned economy, but planned by finance instead of a state central authority.

All that is to say: why would we expect competition to grow, as you suggest, when the current companies already won, and therefore have the power to crush competition? They’ve already dismantled so many of the antimonopoly and other regulations standing in their way. The classical economics argument treats these new better companies as just sorta rising out of the aether but in reality there’s a whole political context that is probably worth considering.

Honestly I almost never have to deal with any of those things, because there’s always a more fundamental problem. Engineering as a discipline exists to solve problems, but most of these companies have no mechanism to sit down and articulated what problems they are trying to solve at a very fundamental level, and then really break them down and talk about them. The vast majority of architecture decisions in software get made by someone thinking something like “I want to use this new ops tool” or “well everyone uses react so that’s what I’ll use.”

My running joke is that every client has figured out a new, computationally expensive way to generate a series of forms. Most of my job is just stripping everything out. I’ve replaced so many extremely complex, multi-service deploy pipelines with 18 lines of bash, or reduced AWS budgets by one sometimes two orders of magnitude. I’ve had clients go from spending 1500/month on AWS with serverless and lambda and whatever other alphabet soup of bullshit services that make no sense to 20 fucking dollars.

It’s just mind-blowing how stupid our industry is. Everyone always thinks I’m sort of genius performance engineer for knowing bash and replacing their entire front-end react framework repo that builds to several GB with server side templating from 2011 that loads a 45kb page. Suddenly people on mobile can actually use the site! Incredible! Turns out your series of forms doesn’t need several million lines of javascript.

I don’t do this kind of work as much anymore, but up until about a year ago, it was my bread and butter…

I agree. I’ve actually written about this.

It gets solved by planning. Actual long term planning that includes the relevant stakeholders. Currently everything is run by and for VCs who only plan in terms of funding rounds and exits.

Yeah, I totally see that. I want to clarify: It’s not that I don’t think it’s useful at all. It’s that our industry has fully internalized venture capital’s value system and they’re going to use this new tool to slam on the gas as hard as they can, because that’s all we ever do. Every single software ecosystem is built around as fast as possible, everything else be damned.

Yeah, I think helping people who don’t know how to code and letting them dabble is a great use case. I fully encourage that.

I don’t think it’s actually good for generating scaffolding in terms of helping people write quality software, but I do agree with you that that’s how people are going to use it, and then the expectation is going to become that you have to do things that fast. It’s kind of mindboggling to me that anyone would look at the software industry and decide that our problem is that we don’t move fast enough. Moving too fast for speed’s own sake is already the cause of so many of our problems.

I do software consulting for a living. A lot of my practice is small organizations hiring me because their entire tech stack is a bunch of shortcuts taped together into one giant teetering monument to moving as fast as possible, and they managed to do all of that while still having to write every line of code.

In 3-4 years, I’m going to be hearing from clients about how they hired an undergrad who was really into AI to do the core of their codebase and everyone is afraid to even log into the server because the slightest breeze might collapse the entire thing.

LLM coding is going to be like every other industrial automation process in our society. We can now make a shittier thing way faster, without thinking of the consequences.

I am totally in favor of criticizing researchers for doing science that actually serves corporate interests. I wrote a whole thing doing that just last week. I actually fully agree with the main point made by the researchers here, that people in fields like machine vision are often unwilling to grapple with the real-word impacts of their work, but I think complaining that they use the word “object” for humans is distracting, and a bit of a misfire. “Object detection” is just the term of art for recognizing anything, humans included, and of course humans are the object that interests us most. It’s a bit like complaining that I objectified humans by calling them a “thing” when I included humans in “anything” in my previous sentence.

Again, I fully agree with much of their main thesis. This is a really important point:

As co-author Luca Soldaini said on a call with 404 Media, even in the seemingly benign context of computer vision enabled cameras on self-driving cars, which are ostensibly there to detect and prevent collision with human beings, computer vision is often eventually used for surveillance.

“The way I see it is that even benign applications like that, because data that involves humans is collected by an automatic car, even if you’re doing this for object detection, you’re gonna have images of humans, of pedestrians, or people inside the car—in practice collecting data from folks without their consent.” Soldaini said.

Soldaini also pointed to instances when this data was eventually used for surveillance, like police requesting self-driving car footage for video evidence.

And I do agree that sometimes, it’s wise to update our language to be more respectful, but I’m not convinced that in this instance it’s the smoking gun they’re portraying it as. The structures that make this technology evil here are very well understood, and they matter much more than the fairly banal language we’re using to describe the tech.

I post our stuff on lemmy because I’m an active user of lemmy and I like it here. I find posting here is more likely to lead to real discussions, as opposed to say Twitter, which sucks, but is where I’d be if I was blasting self-promotion. It’s not like lemmy communities drive major traffic.

Isn’t that exactly what lemmy is for? It’s what I used to love about Reddit 10 years ago, or Stumble Upon, or Digg, or any of the even older internet aggregators and forums: People would put their small, independent stuff on it. It’s what got me into the internet. I used to go on forums and aggregators to read interesting stuff, or see cool projects, or find weird webcomics, or play strange niche web games, or be traumatized by fucked up memes. Now the entire internet is just “5 big websites, each consisting of pics from the other 4” or whatever the quip is, and it’s fucking boring.

So yes, I and a few others are theluddite.org. It’s an independent site written by leftists working in tech and academia, mostly aimed at other people in tech and academia, but also for everyone. It’s not like I’m hiding it; it literally says so in my bio. We are not professional opinion-havers, unlike “mainstream” sources; I personally write code for a living every day, which is something that surprisingly few tech commentators have ever done. That makes it possible for me to write about major topics discussed in the media, like google’s ad monopoly,, in a firsthand way that doesn’t really exist elsewhere, even on topics as well trodden as that one.

And yes, we post our stuff on the fediverse, because the fediverse rules. It is how we think the internet should be. We are also self-hosted, publish an RSS feed, don’t run any ads or tracking (and often write about how bad those things are for the internet) because that’s also how we think the internet is supposed to work.

There are two issues. First, self-driving cars just aren’t very good (yet?). Second, it will make millions of people’s jobs obsolete, and that should be a good thing, but it’s a bad thing, because we’ve structured our society such that it’s a bad thing if you lose your job. It’d be cool as hell if it were a good thing for the people who don’t have to work anymore, and we should structure our society that way instead.