therealpygon

This sounds both made up but factually accurate.

Society. That is how taxes work.

Being first to take what is frequently the next logical step shouldn’t be protected from competition for long enough to make the innovation obsolete. 5 years is more than enough time to establish a brand name and recoup any R&D costs. We can raise entirely new people to adulthood in less time than current patent expirations. If it can easily be undercut by a cheaper alternative, then the “innovation” is unlikely to have been that novel or costly. A more complex innovation would be harder to create and productize which should in itself help limit competition. If you aren’t capable of productizing an innovation, you patented it early just to prevent competitors who were already working on the same innovation from being able to recoup their own costs.

People far too often buy into the “R&D is incredibly expensive” narrative that republicans and big pharma like to perpetuate. R&D isn’t generally as expensive as much as if you aren’t first, you automatically lose everything you invested. Beyond that, R&D is frequently done with the assistance public funding, then snatched away by corporations to prevent competition.

If competition is healthy, and is the self-proclaimed hallmark of capitalism, why are corporations so anti-competitive? Competition IS healthy, but it means that wealth is spread across many rather than the few who control patents, and requires continual innovation if you want to maintain your status as #1 rather than just sitting on a large, frequently purchased, patent portfolio.

The current speed of innovation in AI has shown what things could have been like if less time and money was spent trying to stifle innovation in the name of protecting profits by suing over patents. Every patent is just one more ball and chain shackling society to slow progress for profit.

At least, that’s my opinion.

Me too. Facebook is the craigslist of Social Networks. Hard to go more than two posts without running into a scam or a business.

I'm not sure the distinction would make enough of a difference, and focusing only on XMPP might be doing yourself a disservice. There was nothing social about Office, but the OP points out how the same strategy worked there as well. Users, overall, tend to go where the other users are. Some people left Digg for Reddit because they were unhappy with Digg, but the vast majority simply followed because it was where the users (therefore activity) went. Reddit wasn't even the best of the many options at that time; what was important was the inflow of users. Once that kicks off, others tend to flock like moths to flame.

As you point out, Reddit was not where you interacted socially, yet it became where you congregated because that was where everyone else was and therefore where the easiest access to content and engagement was. If a Meta product becomes the most popular way to consume ActivityPub content, and therefore becomes the primary Source for that content, independent servers will become barren with just a Meta Thanos-snap of disconnecting their API. They only need to implement Meta-only features that ActivityPub can't interact or compete with, and the largest portion of users will be drawn away from public servers to the "better" experience with more direct activity. (And that's without mentioning their ability to craft better messaging, build an easier on-boarding experience, and put their significant coffers to work on marketing.)

Sure, there will still be ActivityPub platforms in the aftermath. Openoffice/Libreoffice still exists, XMPP clients and servers still exist, there are still plenty of forums and even BBS systems. But, there is a reason why none of those things are the overwhelmingly "popular" option, and the strategy they will employ to make sure that happens is the focus of the article, not so much XMPP.

Exactly right. Human greed doesn’t only come from money.

• “It will be free advertisement and will help the project grow!”
• “Look how many people are using my server. MY server. I’m popular now!”
• And the more obvious, “If I make my server big enough, maybe I can cash out by being bought by this big company!”

In the end and from whatever the source, that bus always ends up in the same place once they convince themselves to get on it.

A luke-warm summary and comical reference that only summarizes only the first few paragraphs. I hope people don’t only read it and think “but that was Google”.

The article is a warning that given a chance, based on the past actions of Microsoft, Google, other corporations and even Meta itself, allowing Meta to participate in any way with ActivityPub will most likely kill ActivityPub. There is no easier way to ensure profits than by killing any hint of competition that might take users away from their services. This is almost always achieved by seemingly bearing gifts in the form of users or financial backing. By participating, they will really be trying to prevent users from exploring other options at all. Once they have prevented the majority of users from leaving their platform, and have become “the” largest player in the ActivityPub space, they will have successfully made alternatives irrelevant.

I'm strongly of the opinion that instead of killing Apollo, Selig should featureflag most of the features, scale it back, implement ActivityPub quickly and a guided process to get started. Just killing Apollo gives Spez exactly what he wants, especially with the amount of algorithm rigging they are doing to block ActivityPub/Lemmy/Kbin info from making it into Top and Popular.

I'd recommend that you make the changes more slowly, changing things to gibberish (random words), rather than using an app to do them all at one time. It is possibly for them to undo your edits and your deletes if you end up on their radar.

Over the course of days/week(s), you should slowly edit all of your old comments and posts into gibberish, and mark your posts as NSFW. Later, slowly start deleting posts/comments so that you won't be a target of their rollbacks.

I agree. Many people are fixated on GPT because it is shiny and novel, but it is certainly not the pinnacle of what AI could be, or even close. One day, we will look back on calling GPT an “AI” like we would someone calling the first two tin cans on a string a “phone”. Accurate enough, but certainly a far cry from any modern phone.

AI has the capacity to be the most impactful overall to our daily lives, but like most things, advancement will continue to be limited by hardware.

Sadly, it’s probably going to be exactly what happens over time, since that is almost always what regulation does. Some company (Amazon or Meta or Microsoft or Google) will back door legislation via campaign donations to you know who’s, to make sure large regulated companies are the only ones who can run advanced AI models, out of “responsibility” and “safety”. And by seeding all these doom and gloom headlines of a “AI will take over the world” narrative, the public will be just so happy to give up the rights of other people for a thing “they weren’t going to do anyway”, like usual.