> "if I spent the time, risk, effort, and money to develop the pre-eminent protocol and hardware used by most TV's in the world... would I want to give that work away for free?"
Only if you want people to use it. Developing a protocol is an investment in defining the direction a technology follows; the benefits are not best accrued by charging for access to the standard, but rather by leveraging the ability to direct the trend.
The alternative is that the licensing charge causes a bunch of stupid friction and prevents the standard from being truly universal.
EDIT: Implementing a standard is enough work, paying for the privilege to do so is often a non-starter.
Remarkably, Youtube's logged out experience will still be completely available to all age groups. And an a Australian HN user mentioned that one 14-year old had another (presumably older looking) 14-year old do the "video selfie" for her to verify her account on one the sites. So I'm not sure the fight will go away, but it may be slightly more tractable.
It will normalize people thinking that uploading their state-issued ID to whatever contractor is validating accounts is safe and normal.
This is false. Like all the age restricting laws being passed around the world, the implementation is not being specified and is being left to the individual platforms, which are using some combination of photo ID and video selfie in order to validate people's ages. Each platform is implementing it differently, and on different timelines. For example, X has failed to even respond for a while, but it's finally said they'll comply.
> Companies have told Canberra they will deploy a mix of age inference - estimating a user's age from their behaviour - and age estimation based on a selfie, alongside checks that could include uploaded identification documents.
I mean, we're watching the world try to figure out how to use a new set of tools. As with so many disruptive technologies, the initial stages of development appear to be drop in quality and inferior to the status quo. That usually reverses within five to ten years.
That said, I agree with you that AI is not going to lead to people doing less work, in the same way that computers didn't lead to people doing less work.
The non-technical folks don't understand the very real limitations, hallucinations, and security risks that LLMs introduce into workflows. Tech CEOs and leadership are shoving it down everyone's throats without understanding it. Google/Microsoft are shoving it down everyone's' throats without asking, and with all the layoffs that have happened? People are understandably rejecting it.
The entire premise is also CURRENTLY built around copyrighted infringement, which makes any material produced by an LLM questionable legally. Unless the provider you are using has a clause saying they will pay for all your legal bills, you should NOT be using an LLM at work. This includes software development, btw. Until the legal issue is settled once and for all, any company using an LLM may risk becoming liable for copyright infringement. Possibly any individual depending on the setup.
My comment has been weirdly controversial, but I'm not sure why.
I get that LLMs have problems.
I was recently looking into the differences between a flash drive, an SSD, and an NVMe drive. Flash memory is one of the technologies I had in mind when I wrote my comment.
Flash has a bunch of problems. It can only be written over so many times before it dies. So it needs some kind of wear-leveling abstraction that abstracts over the actual storage space and provides a smaller, virtual storage space that is directed by a controller that knows to equally distribute writes over the actual storage, and avoid dead cells when they manifest.
NVMe extends that with a protocol that allows a very high queue depth that allows the controller to reorder instructions such that throughput can be maximized, making NVMe enabled drives more performant. Virtual address space + reordered operations = successful HDD replacement.
My point here is that LLMs are young, and that we're going to compose them into into larger workflows that allow for predictable results. But that composition, and trial and error, take time. We don't yet have the remedies necessary to make up for the weaknesses of LLMs. I think we will as we explore more, but the technology is still young.
As for copyright infringement, I think copyright has been broken for a long time. It is too brittle in its implementation. Google did essentially the same thing as OpenAI when they indexed webpages, but we all wrote it off as fair use because traffic was directed to the website (presumably to aggregate ad revenue). Now that traffic is diverted from the website, everyone has an issue with the crawling. That is not a principled argument, but rather an argument centered around "Do I get paid?". I think we need to be more honest with ourselves about what we actually believe.
> not healthy for the evolution of software or the diversification of the industry.
Not good for evolution, but fantastic for diversification. Being able to write a program that solves a problem and be "done" with it is fantastic, but having the platform walk out from under you requires ongoing work. That ongoing work often demands payment...so platforms that constantly change tend to be highly commercialized.
Open source on Android suffers from this. So many "done" apps are no longer compatible.
And the changes to the underlying platform may not be benevolent. Android, for example, deprecated their API for filesystem access and introduced a scoped replacement that was two orders of magnitude slower. They then banned Syncthing, a file sharing tool, from the Play Store because it doesn't use the latest APIs (APIs are so slow that SyncThing is unusable...the opened bug hasn't been addressed in the intervening years).
The lesson is that any platform that is a moving target presents a risk to both the developer and the user, as that movement concentrates power with the platform owner in a way more more slow moving (or static) platform does not.
All that said, I use Linux 100x as much as I use Windows, because it gives me other kinds of control.
Kids also cannot sign up for internet service, or pay for it. So in both cases, we're talking about society gating access to something, adults obtaining that product legally and bringing it into their home.
The question, then, is who is responsible for the children in the household? I've always answered this exactly one way: the parents. Power and responsibility must go together, so if the parents are responsible, then the parents must have the power. Parents have been held legally responsible for the crimes of their children, and given the coverage of parents being arrested for letting their kids go on a walk across town, I'd say this sets up incentives pretty well.
But all of that is a sideshow; a narrative. What we actually have is a massive swing towards authoritarianism globally, largely fueled by in increase in the internet allowing for unprecedented surveillance overreach, and the folks trying to seize control of those reins are using children seeing porn as a way to seem benevolent to garner support from folks that don't understand what's actually happening. Huge swathes have been duped into believing the narrative and fighting for age-gating in the worst possible ways, and that's because they're missing the larger pattern.
Kids can access the internet in all kinds of places outside the home, and outside the purview of their parents supervision. Schools, libraries, friend's houses, public wifi anywhere.
You may be right about the authoritarianism; it's a tendency of our species and makes it all the more remarkable that Western freedoms have lasted this long. I think, though, that it's more likely simple greed. The giant tech companies, dependent on ad revenue because nobody would actually pay for what they are offering, must be able to track and profile people.
The "protect kids from porn" lobby has always been around, it has nothing to do with surveillance or the internet. These people would be picketing a bookstore that sold Hustler magazine back in the 1970s, and demanding that customers be made to prove their age.
> Kids can access the internet in all kinds of places outside the home, and outside the purview of their parents supervision. Schools, libraries, friend's houses, public wifi anywhere.
Then these places should make sure kids are not doing wrong things on the web on their machines. Just like a shop should make sure to not sell alcohol to kids. A library should have some kind of web filter anyway to at least block porn.
Only if you want people to use it. Developing a protocol is an investment in defining the direction a technology follows; the benefits are not best accrued by charging for access to the standard, but rather by leveraging the ability to direct the trend.
The alternative is that the licensing charge causes a bunch of stupid friction and prevents the standard from being truly universal.
EDIT: Implementing a standard is enough work, paying for the privilege to do so is often a non-starter.
reply