this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
163 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
65958 readers
8308 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If their proposed solution is not completely open sourced and the source visible to everyone, then I have no interest in it.
They will make it open source, just tremendously complicated and expensive to comply with.
In general, if you see a group proposing regulations, it's usually to cement their own positions: e.g. openai is a frontrunner in ML for the masses, but doesn't really have a technical edge against anyone else, therefore they run to congress to "please regulate us".
Regulatory compliance is always expensive and difficult, which means it favors people that already have money and systems running right now.
There are so many ways this can be broken in intentional or unintentional ways. It's also a great way to detect possible e.g. government critics to shut them down (e.g. if you are Chinese and everything is uniquely tagged to you: would you write about Tiananmen square?), or to get monopolies on (dis)information.
This is not literally trying to force everyone to get a license for producing creative or factual work but it's very close since you can easily discriminate against any creative or factual sources you find unwanted.
In short, even if this is an absolutely flawless, perfect implementation of what they want to do, it will have catastrophic consequences.
I bet it won't. And I bet the implementations of all 3 are out of spec, and send your shit to everyone else that will buy it.
That's a good bet! That means I'll have zero interest in it and will not use it.
I got fed up with MS bullshit and moved to Linux. Replaced illustrator with Inkscape and Photoshop with Photopea until I can learn how to use GIMP's unintuitive UI.
There is a learning curve with GIMP. Once you get past it, GIMP is great. It does about 90-95% of what Photoshop will do and that's good enough for me. I'm fully on Linux as well. I run Arch and swear by it. I also like Open and Free BSD.
I'm an amateur macro photographer and I love taking photos and doing light tweeking to them to make them more presentable for your average person but I am definitely not going to spend the required hours upon hours to learn to do the simplest things in gimp and dark table that i can learn PS and LR in a 10 min video or less.
That being said I also refuse to pay a god dam subscription fee for something I used to own outright 20 years ago especially considering it can't even stack or slab photos even 10% as good as zerene or helicon.
And even then I wouldn't trust those companies.
It will not matter I'd it is open source but it is backed into the HW. You will be their removed anyways with no way to change it.
Did you type removed or does some system in the fediverse automatically censor words?