Elon Musk blamed AI companies for new “temporary” limitations on Twitter access. Verified accounts can read up to 6,000 posts per day, while unverified users are limited to seeing 600 posts per day.
Of course the manchild with fragile ego blames other people for his problems.
This isn’t how you handle automated processes scraping you, you handle that by restricting things that human beings can’t do. Preventing literally every user from seeing a reasonable amount of content is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I’m in IT for a company with a significant web presence. We rely on Akamai for a number of services including CDN and WAF (web application firewall). They have a WAF add-on called Bot Manager that can pretty accurately identify web traffic from bots in real time. If what Musk is claiming was true then tools like Akamais Bot Manager and other similar products would easily identify this traffic and allow them to block it or route it elsewhere.
Musk should know this. I know Tesla uses Akamai.
In other words: Man who uses his users’ data for money is mad when other people use his users’ data for money.
I just don’t believe it has to do with site scrapping. He says the daily read cap is temporary measure but that makes no sense. First of all he gives no length of time. Is it days? Weeks? Several months? Scrapping will just resume when the daily cap ends. In the meantime all the users will get frustrated and leave. It’s hilariously stupid decision.
It’s not a decision I think - I twitter has now tried to move away from AWS/Google Cloud(?) for its hosting but now the bill is due. Elon doesn’t want to pay the full billion dollar bill and AWS/Google Cloud(?) has rate limited them because Elon is stiffing them.
So they have to rate limit the users to be able to use the AWS request bottleneck, while implementing that, they DDOSed themselves:
I think people are missing the bigger picture here. We’re approaching a point where AI might not be feasible because of privacy concerns and copyright infringement. Midjourney is scraping art from millions of artists without their permission or knowledge.
If I look at 12 van goghs (or any artist) painting and tried to make something in a similar style do i need permission? I don’t see why how the AI learns is relevent. As long as the creation in the end is original.
Well the difference between you and an AI is that you have biases. You have what is called a perception filter that everything you’ve experienced is fed through. You can consume as many Van Gogh’s as you wish but you’ll never match Van Gogh because you aren’t Van Gogh. An AI doesn’t have a perception filter, it sees things as they are and will replicate it as best as it can. It’ll go to the extent of copying Van Gogh’s paintings entirely and someone can take those and post them as new things. An AI cannot be inspired by Van Gogh, it isn’t capable of that, it just copies.
You are not allowed to use any media commercially for free, why would that be different for an AI?
Good point, most artists don’t live in a vacuum these days. The art we create results from a similar traning process than the AI’s. Maybe just treat AI art the same with all rules about plagiarism so that it has to be original as well?
edit: a word
Personally, I believe that all AI generated content must be non for profit. You can create anything you like, for any purpose, as long as it doesn’t make you money.
