Several players have said they’ll exit the UK rather than exit encryption.
I’ve had Fitbits for years but I’m probably never buying another one.
The main thing keeping me locked into the Fitbit ecosystem was the social features - my family are dispersed around the country and all have Fitbits, so for years we did the weekly step challenges as a bit of friendly competition and a vehicle for staying in good contact. The competition made a genuine difference to our behaviour - especially for encouraging my parents to stay active in retirement.
Then after the Google acquisition they killed off the challenges on spurious grounds. It’s generally suspected this is part of a drive to gradually kill off the Fitbit brand and drive people onto Google’s own Pixel watches. Now Fitbit’s USP is gone and so I’ll probably just get a Garmin next time as people generally think that’s a better product.
The tragedy of the commons is an economic and ecological concept concerning situations where private parties will overuse a common resource because private incentives and public interests aren’t aligned. For example, overfishing or carbon emissions.
In this case, the problem as articulated in this article is that each party in the AI gold rush - Google, OpenAI, Baidu, etc - has an incentive to rush their AI development without adequate controls so they can get ahead of their competitors, potentially taking us into dangerous outcomes in which one of them produces AI that has far-reaching harmful consequences for humanity. I guess the ‘commons’ here is the future of human society, which AI developers have private incentives to take for granted.
The solution proposed is to adopt many of the classic solutions economists have devised for tragedies of the commons - points 1-8 in the article - and apply them to AI development in the ways set out in the article.
But the same communities can exist on multiple sites, and it’s confusing to navigate all of that.
I mean, on Reddit the same communities can exist on the same site. I’m a member of r/europe and r/europes, and of r/introvert and r/introverts…
Federation isn’t the cause of competing communities. What happens on Reddit is that eventually enough of a mass of people congregate around one sub for a topic, and that becomes the de facto main one. The same thing will happen here.
I know the common answer is something around the lines of “because companies only care about making money”, but I still don’t get why it seems like all these social media companies have suddenly agreed to screw themselves during pretty much the period of March-June.
It seems like the proximate trigger for many of these decisions has been the rise of ChatGPT at the end of last year. Before this, they saw the best way to monetise their platforms as being about encouraging new content to create new clicks for advertising revenue. Since ChatGPT, they realised they’re all sitting on goldmines of old content that could be used to train their own AI models - so suddenly they’re prepared to take a range of seemingly-mad actions that will harm the quality and quantity of new content being created, because they think they’ve got enough revenue-generating potential from the existing content.
Of course the problem here is that a) they’re killing the golden goose - monetising the back book while degrading the new content means they can only do this once, so they better hope it works and makes them a shit load of money, whilst b) although there’s loads of potential in AI, we’re yet to see someone actually make money through it and it has the potential to be a huge bubble where the hype eventually dissipates and the market collapses upon itself, with only a handful of players making it through unscathed to become the big success story.
All of these social media companies are betting the future of their platforms on them being the one that makes it through the AI bubble. Most of them will fail.
Well done to Apple for telling their customers they won’t get viruses…