Hacker reverse engineers his Samsung TV and finds on-device AI listening for your dog and baby, watching what you watch, and borrowing your soundbar's mic if the TV doesn't have one. Then OpenAI banned him for reverse-engineering it.

Source:

top 94 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 513 points 2 weeks ago (79 children)

Their own harnesses breaking out of their test environments and hacking third party companies is “oopsi” but their customers using an agent in a controlled manner to reverse engineer firmware of a device they own is bad. I see. Fuckers.

  • source
  • hideshow 79 child comments
  • [–] 142 points 2 weeks ago (19 children)

    Corporations gonna corporate.

    It's high time we had a revolution of our own in North America to chase out these corporate barons that own every little minute aspect of our lives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 weeks ago (15 children)

    I highly suggest you to read "Enshittification" by Cory Doctorow, especially the new and updated version.

    They stripped our freedom to own our devices. We need a revolution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

    More than anything, we need to stop buying this shit.

    Sales, as in "there are none.." for a few quarters would tank the stock valuations enough that the stakeholders would make life quite uncomfortable on the C-suites for their decisions to bake spyware into everything.

    NGL, BEST decision I made was to jettison cable TV service back in 1999 when we came online. If (and this is a BIG "if" nowadays..) I watch something, it's from a DVD or I hoist the Jolly Roger and sail the seven seas..

    My current 10 year old TV is doing duty as a 50-inch 4K display for my gaming PeeCee.. and it's kinda "special needs" as a supposedly smart TV in that it doesn't have a single app installed that can actually stream 4K - what can I say.. it was a WalMart special.. gee, I wonder why?

    I put it online (via ethernet) when we got it to test it's "smart" abilities and quickly discovered it was an absolute dog.

    Works great to game on though.

    LOL!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    This is way too complex of a topic to leave to "consumer choice". There are layers upon layers of complex systems at play, not to mention miles of legalize and precisely crafted PR statements to say one thing and mean another.

    The only way this gets better is with government regulation, pretending consumers can make a difference here is blaming the victim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    But the government itself has bbeen bought out by most of these bige companies ...so....

    What 'government regulations' you thinking of? I sure theyll all be very helpful... 🤭

    Bro the government itself is part of the prpblem cauae the government is A-OK with a capitaliistic set of governmental regulations that give the richest capitalists many freedoms even when theyre being 'regulated'. These government regulattions you speak of will be like palcing these rich companies under house arrest....in a 26,000 square feet mansion!

    We have tto destroy the system itself in its entirety, both the bribed governmeent and the capitaliists that contorol our economies and our governments.

    Why cant WE be our own government? Werecognize that thhere is a problem. We investigate the problem and recognize that this is psychopathic. We recognize that the execs at companies thatt do this type of bullshit should be arrested , or worse, and then have their assets nationalized ... We cant do this shit our selves?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    Why cant WE be our own government?

    Because most of "we" are checked out dummies who are easily manipulated by unscrupulous entities. And the more money you have, the more dummies you can manipulate.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that.

    As someone that spent 15 years in the Nielsens Homescan Consumer Shopping survey (rebranded as National Consumer Panel) the power IS in the hands of the consumer.. Hence the huge industry effort on determining what advertising does and does not work.

    In that survey, one would scan ALL purchases and send in the data weekly and the company would then send questionnaires on WHY one buys an item and what, if any, commercials they see (in print, radio or TV - then later online) and if the ads were memorable.

    As I was answering the questionnaires, I was also noting how they framed the questions, and what assumptions they made in the pre-selected answers we were to use. (..you'd be astonished by the assumptions that are made about the public..)

    The fact that panel members didn't even have the ability to use their own words to say what they did or didn't like about their purchases or the businesses and instead it was about feelings.. that right there told me that emotional manipulation was/is the main leverage point used by advertisers and corporations.

    The consumers have ALL the power in the equation, as all a consumer has to do is say "no".. the level of manipulation that industry has to go to - and the surveying and the depths to which people are plumbed and pumped for info - is more about maintaining customers through deception than it is about keeping them by creating high quality goods and services.

    Used shit is the way to go.. or better yet, be the cultural change yourself and jettison the old media. For sure I did by cutting the cable TV in 1999, ...and we haven't looked back.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    you’d be astonished by the assumptions that are made about the public…

    Please provide an example or two. I'd like to be astonished.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    The best one was the pharma survey.. They assumed that EVERYONE in middle age is on meds.

    I got sent a pharmaceutical survey and how those operate is you would get a mailer with a series of questions and you'd use the barcode scanner to scan the answers.

    I got into that targeted survey (somehow) and was sent a three ring binder of pages and pages of drugs.

    The first four pages were questions related to when you'd started on meds, for what illness and when did you stop taking them and why..

    Nowhere in the initial survey questions was the option to say "I have not STARTED taking medicine / have no need.."

    I called in and talked to a representative and she couldn't wrap her brain around the concept that as a middle-age American there were ZERO prescription drugs being taken by anyone in my home.

    I had to ask her why the survey was predicated on the belief that everyone was on drugs - and she got a bit testy and huffed "well, I wouldn't say that!" and I asked her where the "no use or need for meds option" was on the survey if that wasn't the case.. she replied "well, don't you need medicines?" and I said "Nielsen has our full scan list of the food we've bought and eaten for the last decade and no one can draw a connection between proper food and health?"

    Crickets..

    "Oh, you must be really healthy!" "Yeah.. we don't eat garbage.." More crickets..

    Then she credited me the points for the survey (It was a big one so it tallied large - I got two iPods out of that year's totals..) and quickly hung up.

    The assumptions that we also watched TV and the questions about ads on it that we'd seen were pretty interesting. they also sent out a Media Recording device (looked like an old-school pager) that would listen all day for an ultrasonic sound that was broadcast on the various Clear Channel radio stations and we were to wear it as we went about our day. Sorry to say that one was a bust - by that time I'd discovered somafm online and was well into streaming radio.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    My car is a 2010 Mazda 3.

    My TV is a 32 inch 2009 Sony Bravia 720p compatible with both analog and digital TV signals, and has coax cable and RCA inputs and outputs among others like HDMI of course. I can still hook up my original NES and even a VCR to it. It's the best TV I will ever have and I hope it never dies out.

    My PC is running Linux 100% now.

    We go to the local library to rent DVDs for free, buy them used from thrift shops, or download from TPB. I have a USB disk hooked to an NVidia Shield to watch them on VLC on my old TV.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    If all manufacturers of smart TV's with the best picture qualities are using this targeted avertising/spying firmware, as much as I agree with your sentiment, it's not really a viable option for someone who's in need of purchasing a TV.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    Is there a reason that a TV needs to be new? I picked up a 50" plasma for 80 bucks last year, for use in my work studio. NGL, attaching it to a MacPro that's used for graphics - with the color saturation on that thing? - holy hell, it's beautiful and I can match the outputs to the color profiles for the print jobs I run off.. Facebook marketplace for the win, my man.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    More than anything, we need to stop buying this shit.

    Or we can pull together and design boards as drop in replacements for the circuit boards in the SmartTVs. I'm shocked at how cheap it is to get custom boards printed these days. Since SmartTVs are sold at a loss with the intent of making even more money by selling your data, replacing the hardware in the device should still end up being cheaper than the cost of an unsubsidized TV.

    With the AI tools available for designing boards now, it shouldn't be terribly difficult for those with the right skills to do this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    capitaliism gonna capitalism.

    Whenever humanity chooses to create a system of economics that places humanity, human communities and our transformative abilities to change the world around uis with our new forms of arts and sciences at its centre rather than disgusting rich jerks and their property Ill be standing with my 'lethal item' here waiting for them.... 🤷🏿‍♂️

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 2 weeks ago

    to reverse engineer firmware of a device they own in order to show the additional privacy violations by Samsung.

    Yeah, this is completely messed-up. I wonder if Samsung broke any laws by accessing customer soundbars without consent, reporting what they watched, etc...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 2 weeks ago (56 children)

    Once again, theres an amazing amount of ethical ai use out there but apparently nigh nobody cares about that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 56 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 2 weeks ago (36 children)

    Ethical from the start you mean? Trained on data with the blessing of the owner?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    First of all, yes, and also not all ai has to be generative or llms. Theres also a lot of other ai that was done before openai fucked everything up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 weeks ago* (2 children)

    When we say AI, we generally mean the LLMs. It's become a marketing term for them.

    Obviously, we used neural networks and such ethically for a long time.

    The problem isnt those, it's the mass harvesting of data, the endless copyright breaches, the stealing of peoples work. All to resell it. While ruining the planet environmentally, economically and it has fucked with the way people think.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I mean yeah thats true but ethical llms are still completely possible but nobodys investing into it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 2 weeks ago*

    Because it's about money. That's it.

    There's no money to be made from ethical ones, you need enough people willing to give you the rights to their stuff for free, because you would not be able to give royalties to them all.

    We already see how unsustainable it is currently with the grand theft models and are just waiting for the bubble to burst.

    AI can fuck off and die, we dont need it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago (21 children)
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (20 children)

    Well, their books are, yes.

    But, the similarities largely stop there, in this instance. Training "AI" on literature isn't at all similar to a single person checking out a book/magazine/dvd/et al, and that's not even getting into the fact that the aforementioned fuckers are destroying tons of physical copies IRL to "train" their bullshit bots.

    "AI" ≈ libraries? Pff. We would be so lucky. 🥲

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (19 children)

    When y'all complained about them leeching Anna's Archive, the legal approach you demanded means buying and shredding one copy of any book they use. They can't resell the book or share their scan because that's piracy, which Lemmy cares deeply about in this context and only this context.

    Training is transformative. A program that can retell Shrek in the style of The Hobbit is not even the same category of thing as either original work. What a network is and does cannot be a substitute, unless the Silmarillion had more swamp ogres than I've heard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 weeks ago (18 children)

    Don't apologize for them —especially not with shit argument points and implied shame. Fuck off with that shit. None of this is a consequence of "our" actions, and your stance is more simp than solid. Nah. Hard pass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (17 children)
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

    I'll say. Wrangling cats is easier than whatever this is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (15 children)

    Additional sneering is worse.

    If you want these companies to do things the right, proper, and legal way - that means shredding books. That's the only way to get a scan and "own" it. Blame our stupid laws for not offering better options. Mostly books scanned this way are mass-market paperbacks, because nothing popular is rare, and most important things are fairly popular. This is inseparable from your rights over any physical media you own, and the dumbest possible thing we could do is make copyright worse just because you're sour about a chatbot.

    You should want better options for these companies. They'd love to brag about how many niche titles they've preserved, if they could just plop their scans onto Archive.org. That's a better end than a lot of oddities would get, languishing on a shelf until they hit the trash.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    Mostly books scanned this way are mass-market paperbacks, because nothing popular is rare, and most important things are fairly popular.

    They're buying rare books, too. They don't think it's worth their time to pick and choose, and money is no object. There was a story about this fairly recently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    There was a story about this every week for the last year. Every single time, acting like it's fresh and shocking and inexplicable. Like they're doing anything more than buying ONE copy each.

    Hey, wouldn't it be great if they could share those scans of expensive oddities? Maybe we should relax the laws that turn old books into vulnerable secrets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    What makes you think that they would share them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Again, you already replied to the comment where I explained that. As if it takes explaining. They knew that people would endlessly flip out, so they did this in secret, which cost more money and did not last. Why wouldn't they prefer the effortless public goodwill of dumping all those PDFs on Archive.org? A couple gigabytes of uploads would have turned this cloak-and-dagger affair into a public relations campaign.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    Amazon doesn't care about public goodwill unless it affects their bottom line. It isn't affecting their bottom line, because despite people being outraged over the destruction of rare books, nobody AFAIK is organizing a boycott. Making the PDFs publicly available would also allow their rivals to use them for training data.

    The idea that Amazon would upload anything to archive.org is absurd. Why would they expend any effort to make a handful of people happy? You're thinking about what you would do if you were Amazon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago

    "Which cost more money" is their bottom line.

    I'm treating them as greedy and manipulative - you're treating them like cartoon supervillains.

    Do you think the constant hue and cry over "they're shredding books!!!" has no impact on their operations? Like it's somehow disconnected from the surprisingly effective backlash over data centers? It's certainly making anti-AI clickbait highly profitable, if every fucking tabloid blog takes a turn to rehash the story.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (8 children)

    ... to do things the right, proper, and legal way - that means shredding books.

    Sorry, are you high? How tf does that make sense? Do you shred the books you buy, after reading them?

    This particular use you seem to be irrationally shilling for is nothing like anything humankind has experienced before, let alone a variation on commerce that's been ethically overseen, and should be treated as such: with ironclad, tailor-fit licensing per-use to utilize specific content, and with fines proportionate to its corp's worth for each failure/breach. (which likely will be many, in the beginning, as the leeches test the new boundaries)

    And, until that is even viable, they don't get to "train" their half-assed LLMs on anything they don't have explicit permission to do so. Full stop.

    That any of us here would prefer to let it slide "this time" belies a collective accessory to the currently conflagrating reality we all share.

    ^*^ : bullshit they are; we'll hear about the infinitesimal "fine" later on, once it benefits them to shift public focus. Check back later, see if they don't.

    edit: FWIW, the glaring fact that the current draconian laws that're being complied with^*^ are irrelevant to this unique type of transaction and are only serving to justify the rapid destruction of priceless literary works, etc. isn't exactly engendering hope.

    Also:

    They'd love to brag about how many niche titles they've preserved

    jesuschrist. You've gulped the Kool-Aid, my guy. 🤢 You know "them" personally? They call you at home? Like you somehow have a finger on the pulse of what "they'd love to" do.

    ...or, maybe you do. 🤔

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (7 children)

    One of us is pulling laws out of their ass, and it's not me.

    For the same reason you're allowed to rip your CDs to MP3 without the record label's permission, you can make backup scans of a book. If you then sell the book - that's not a backup. You can never let anyone else own that copy, if you want to keep using your backup. Since the easiest way to scan a book is to cut the spine off, it's not difficult to see why these companies dump the pages when they're done. Well. It's not difficult unless you stick your fingers in your ears and go 'la la la that can't be how things work.'

    It's not a matter of "this time." I do not give a fuck about actual piracy. Why am I supposed to care that some company did math about library books? What they're doing is only legal because of your rights to the products you buy, and what they're doing is only required because eternal copyright has suffocated the public domain.

    The US constitution explicitly states that copyright exists to promote the useful arts and sciences. Protecting dead trees with the words of dead authors, to stop a technology whose limits we've barely seen, is antithetical to that purpose.

    There will come vegan models. There will be very small networks, trained on bespoke data happily provided by open-source ultranerds, which achieve the spooky parts of modern datacenter behemoths. Obviously the ability to reason doesn't require knowing what Harry Potter is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    Ah. I see we're moving the goal posts now? Does this usually work for you? I, for one, really enjoy talking to cement. Have fun doing you, homes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

    The fuck I have. Explain yourself.

    I have consistently told you: this is legal because of copyright law, and you should want that law weakened so the parts you despise are not mandatory.

    To your late edit: I know these doomed companies would brag about sharing their scans of individual rare books because it would be cheaper than the effort to do it in secret, and better marketing than the endless screeching after they were inevitably found out. Tell me otherwise. Walk me through how any company would rather suffer this game of telephone where it sounds like they're burning down libraries, if they could instead announce how much good they've done for the world, never-you-mind their naked underlying motives.

    Recently someone scoffed - "It sounds like you’re comparing the most reasonable views of the pro-AI crowd to the most reactionary views of the anti-AI crowd." Threads like this are why. Threads like this are all there is. This is in the goddamn LocalLLaMA community, and I still have to deal with irrational insulting nonsense - for saying "libraries are for reeeadiiing."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I know these doomed companies would brag about sharing their scans of individual rare books because it would be cheaper than the effort to do it in secret, and better marketing than the endless screeching after they were inevitably found out. Tell me otherwise.

    This was a fairly recent story. So far, I have heard nothing about them sharing the scans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    All AI defenders do is present strawman arguments. It all boils down to "I am lazy" in the ends.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago*

    Enough irony to build a battleship. Neither of you has any response besides posturing and insults.

    I didn't spend six hours trying to get a horse with wet hooves to drink, out of indolence. I weathered this constant essentialist sneering and conspiratorial emoji wank to explain - this is the legal path. This is what our absurd copyright situation allows and requires. This is what a lot of y'all asked for, whether or not you listened to us saying so.

    I'm not the one who shuffled cards for a fallacy to lie about and then grumped my way out of that conversation. I am, even now, suffering fools to better their understanding of this topic. You are aggressively disinterested. What the fuck are you still doing here?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -13 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    It's far too late to put those horses back in the barn.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    "we can't get rid of the Atlantic slave trade it's here to stay"

    Ok buddy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    Lemmy: "If we tiny speck of people make a moral stand and don't use LLMs, they'll give up their stolen content and go away!"

    The theft is done, over, you're not going to get those horses back in the barn no matter how high your horse is. Do you imagine that on some glorious day the entire planet will legislate wiping all training data and say, "Sorry. Let's not do that." Sure. Soon as we get textbook communism working for 8,000,0000,000 people.

    Bullshit like this is why I left lemmy last year. It feels like a bunch of children arguing over their personal version of a perfect world. Bluesky was kinda nice, people with some age and experience and an understanding of real politik. Kinda vanilla as well, but cutesy little quips like yours weren't met with much acclaim.

    Go reinvent the world kid, with no understanding of history or human nature. While you're at it, maybe every museum on the planet can send every artifact back to the original peoples. Uh, gotta put a timeline on "original", but it's the right thing to do! Good luck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    The 10% of ethical AI use is drowned out by the other 90% of absolute liquid trash.

    That's not touching the ethics of stealing everyone's work for your AI then selling it back to them.

    That's not touching the ethics of aggressive Data Center build outs that threaten people down to their actual health.

    That's not touching the fascist supporting corporations that run and own the frontier AI models.

    That's not touching the lack of those frontier AI company's ethics. They operate like it's the fuckng wild west.

    How can you possibly have a victim complex about this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    That’s not touching the ethics of stealing everyone’s work for your AI then selling it back to them.

    Yeah, it's the "selling it back to them" part that gets me. I don't want to outlaw scraping, because then the Wayback Machine couldn't function. The Wayback Machine is free, though. It's a public service. (One which is very much needed, IMO.) If, instead, the Internet Archive required that you pay for a subscription in order to use it, I think most people would be very upset, and rightfully so.

    You want to scrape the Web to feed your LLM? Cool! Make it an open-weight model.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    I wonder what % of actions being ethical would be needed from Germany before WW2 would be considered unjustified.

    I'm willing to bet that 10% of the actions the Nazis did (note: out of all the actions the German govt did, including enforcing laws, running trains/buses, collecting taxes, building infrastructure etc) were ethical, and yet the Nazis were still obviously the bad guys in WW2.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

    This comment doesn't even make sense in the context? The danger lies in unethical use. It's also unregulated.

    Don't forget, there was a very brief time period when Google was ethical. How long did that last?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    I think the point is people like the person hacking Samsung smart TVs with AI should get some credit, purist "AI bad" takes don't account for this. Also if there's regulation it's likely to start by targeting good uses like that one. Fuck OpenAI though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    1 good thing coming of it, doesn't wipe away all the fucking harm AI is causing. If AI never blew up, the world would be better off. It's introduced a whole host of problems we didnt need, just for the sake of a few people getting richer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago*

    1 good thing coming of it, doesn’t wipe away all the fucking harm AI is causing. If AI never blew up, the world would be better off. It’s introduced a whole host of problems we didnt need

    So what though? You don't have the option of getting rid of it, and it's a technology, not a person. Nuance is called for, especially if the alternative is refusing to acknowledge good things people do with it, or focusing condemnation on "AI" as a monolithic entity instead of the particular people and companies doing harm with it. Case in point, OpenAI banning this person.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    I'm sorry, but AI generally remains "bad" until regulation takes place, community concerns about data centres are properly considered and protections are put in place. Right now, billionaires and corporations are running amok and that usually doesn't end well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 171 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (13 children)

    Why do people post things like this in twitter? Why can't they write it up in a single blog post on a site that does not require users to authenticate to view the whole thread? I have never understood these long twitter threads.

    Edit: I just remembered that there is a solution for this: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2113014142600953868.html but it's still ridiculous that an app needs to exist to aggregate dispirate tweets, and of course it doesn't work with the parent tweets because they're not all one thread. Also this app quit working during the twitter API debacle, which is why I forgot about it, but it looks like it's back.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 122 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (9 children)

    It's entirely the wrong format for it. Same as using Discord in place of old text forums. I will rant for HOURS to anyone who will listen about how Discord is an apocalypse and has completely wiped any documentation off the face of the internet for soooo many projects. It's not searchable or indexed, and even if they make a good discord forum it's like writing questions and answers on toilet paper and wiping your ass with it after 30 minutes. Moderators and admins constantly complain about people not reading the FAQ or asking the same questions over and over... I WONDER WHY THAT IS. HMMM? MIGHT IT BE BECAUSE NOBODY CAN SEARCH ANYTHING AND YOUR FAQ IS GARBAGE!??! MAYBE ASKING QUESTIONS IS THE ONLY WAY TO GET A FUCKING ANSWER!!! (MAYBE. IF YOU'RE LUCKY AND SOMEONE WHO KNOWS THE ANSWER SEES YOUR QUESTIONS LIVE AT THAT MOMENT AND RESPONDS)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    I agree with you in the main, but you can, in fact, search Discord (provided, of course, you have a Discord account).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    You're right, but you can search discord the same way that guy can search his local dump for that hard drive with billions of dollars worth of bitcoin on it.

    It is technically possible. The chance of me finding what i want by searching a 15 million comment discord thread labelled #eng-bugs for my very specific issue is close to zero.

    It's like how lawyers will bury the opposition in literally every document they can find to make finding what's relevant a needle in the haystack. Except it's not discord being malicious it's just criminal misuse of a platform for what it was never made for.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    And the search is garbage. Like old reddit search.

    But I guess to be completely fair, google and bing and the like also have made their google searches trash too with SEO and AI wevsites. Instead of real results.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    And the search is garbage. Like old reddit search.

    Did reddit allow you to search by username?

    google and bing and the like also have made their google searches trash

    I wanna know how to Google search with Bing. lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Summarizing a discord channel into a usable format would be an excellent use for an LLM.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Or people can just use the right format instead of making an LLM play pick up 52 million.

    I agree it could make something slightly more useable than discord's current state but it would be a bandaid fix that doesn't solve the core problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    50 comments in c/privacy@programming.dev view that post
    28 comments in c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world view that post