why? Say someone is murdered, and it doesn't take much forensics to determine that they were attacked, restrained while alive, then shot in the back of the head execution style.
Or maybe it's even more blatent. police find a note from the day before that says "im going to kill you" then they end up dead.
Would you construe that the commission of those murders was premeditated? almost certainly yes, ergo whoever it gets pinned on, innocent or not will get premeditation applied, it doesn't take much extra here.
Evidence of pre-meditation !== evidence the suspect applied pre-meditation. You need to tie the premeditation to the suspect, I think. In your example, if you can't prove the suspect wrote the note, I don't think you can convict on first degree murder.
I lament not splurging for the 5090 back when I built my machine, I figured it would only increase in value (even used) but it was hard to swallow the price at release which was already expensive and way above MSRP.
This is a hard problem to solve that always existed but is exacerbated by the barrier to entry dropping to the ground.
Really itch is kinda hitting what the mobile markets have been dealing with since long before LLMs, those markets were awash with clones and low quality even outright scammy crap.
Though maybe a bit harder for Itch since their whole shtick is being a low barrier place for people to put their game. Arguably the platform has always had slop, but I would categorize the majority as "honest slop", a person who maybe isn't any good at making games, or doesn't follow through actually finishing their game putting something up there.
anyone old enough to remember Newgrounds and the era of flash knows that loads of flash games were awful. but you would get a more normal Pareto distribution. Ai has lowered the bar so low that ratio becomes skewed. like 1:99 instead of 80:20 with the flood.
Banning AI seems like a non starter, you can make "honest slop" with ai, you can make even good games with it. Self tagging is basically saying "i don't want anyone to play my game". an honest game with AI will get thrown into the pit with the total crap. it's death.
chewing up real people in filters or auto-mod just makes the problem worse. Real people give up on the platform because they were burned, only the AI slop persists.
I don't know how you retain an open and friendly platform that's accepting of honest slop but can stem the tide of genuine slop.
The issue with AI slop is not so much the slop itself (there was always slop) but the amount of slop. When people are producing slop they are limited by time and ability, so the slop can go from mildly annoying to quite bad, but no more. However when it's entirely machine produced, you're literally drowned in slop if nothing is done. It's like the difference between being crapped on by a pigeon and falling in a manure pool
Google is probably going to be fine. The web is going to get a bit weird in a few years and they're going to be right in there.
The web is likely going to layer up soon. As more and more people utilize AI it changes traffic. It's impossible (and undesirable) to keep training with current affairs, LLMS need to go out to the web to find reality and they need to do search in order to get there.
More and more they're going to get blocked from doing so via "human" channels. I predict we're going to get a sub-web. basically MCP but for websites, AI interacts with a sites content through that door, humans use http.
When there's a gold rush sell pickaxes. Forget Gemini, that's a money pit. Google is in a great position to shape that sub-web through chrome and it's current incumbent position as gatekeeper to the web. They'll be selling search deals to all the Big AI agents, indexing the new MCP-like layer so AI can search and interact with site information and blurring the line between your harness and chrome such that browsing the web is more like asking AI for crap and getting pages there in the harness rather than traditional browsing.
before you know it nobody will browse the web the way we do now and no agent harness will function correctly without Google.
How? In past it was sold to website owners as something that will improve their position in search results. Now they see for what it was, a way to make it easier for Google to slurp content for their "zero-click search results" feature. And now even that clutch isn't required, LLMs can rip the content from any website, regardless of their owner's intentions.
I am dreading what this future looks like as there is now an obfuscated middle layer between me and search results. At least when I search Google I can use my finely honed senses around what is SEO garbage vs a reputable site. And I can infer a lot from the site itself in terms of if they are biased in how they are pushing something.
But with models calling for results and not seeing what Google or others are serving back, and then having the AI give you a summary of reviews or rankings for shopping for example, it is really scary how much more opaque that will get.
While it's interesting to see which models performed better I wish they did a control. Gave the question to x number of people and had them provide an answer.
bad (or even made up) statistics have been floating around meat space since forever.
I get your sentiment, though the problem is older than AI, the convenience and market penetration has just ramped up the visibility in this arena.
Many books pre-ai were garbage but not at the rate they could be today. If anything people operate on greater discretion now than in the past because even the worst garbage still had a non-trivial barrier to entry, either sitting down to regurgitate your own garbage or paying someone to make some garbage for you.
There's also some historic precedence of this, the rise of Photoshop/CG and digital manipulation certainly led to a "is this photo real" to similar effect despite manipulations going back to the origins of photography. That acute concern was not as prevalent in my mind before editing became common and accessible.
Is browser compatibility that durable? I would think that both java-script and CSS would be subject to some level of compatibility rot against a browser from 2056
I prefer leaning on Hanlon's razor for things like this, though even in ignorance the effect can be real and dangerous. That said I would not put any model from any country past an "Order 66" kind of thing
someone has to do it but it's not a decent job. Content tagging and content moderation are basically the "ditch digging" of the white collar world and often comes with significant toll on those exposed to such content continuously.
nah, you'll never get there that way. Even if there was willpower to do it legislating these things is too hard.
What we need is some greedy lawyers and civil liability. Find a campaign that infected enough individuals, fire up a class-action lawsuit against the website on which the ads where actually shown (not the ad provider).
If they win the landscape will change. It would set a precedent for civil liability for infecting your users even when it's not your content directly. That would likely spook the shit out of the market, security becomes a feature.
Why the website instead of the ad provider? The website didn't server the ad. The ad provider did and should be the responsible part to ensure what it provides is not malicious.
Attacking a single website does nothing. If you bankrupt the site, there are millions more sites. If you attack the ad provider, bankrupting it, and shutting it down, millions of sites are now protected.
Ideally, you'd sue the website because the website is responsible for everything that shows up on the website they control, and the website would turn around and sue their ad provider because they paid that ad provider for a service that wasn't malware delivery and as a result of that ad provider's crimes (or negligence) the website now has legal costs and harm to their reputation.
It shouldn't fall on the person just going to a website to track down the vendors and third parties the website contracts with.
The lawyers should name everyone involved with unauthorized access to your computer as defendants , the obviously innocent parties can be dropped before it gets to trial.
I don't understand how you could arrive at this perspective. If you're doing business with ExampleCorp and one of their subcontractors malfeasantly mishandles things, would you say that ExampleCorp had nothing to do with it? If not, why does that change when the interaction happens via example.com?
The website is signing up for a service. You could say that a website continuing to use the service of a known malicious ad provider is problematic, but are there any ad providers known to have not served malicious something?
I think you're also confusing multiple malicious activities occurring on the web. Data harvesting is another thing that needs to be banned into oblivion. Rarely are sites doing that natively. It is being done as a second part of service the site wants. A site/app wants naturally wants to seen analytics about how visitors are using the site/app, so they include some third party tool that provides that data to an extent at the cost of collecting/keeping that data for their own use. Want to make it easy for users to interact with social platforms regarding your site/app, they now get to collect/keep that data. That's a different thing than being served malicious ads.
The website is partnering with another business, often as their primary or only means of revenue. That is their entire business. This is not you signing up for a service like Netflix. It is a B2B partnership, and in fact, if you look at the direction money is flowing, they're the ones selling the service (surreptitious access to users' computers). It is their responsibility to choose their business partners and what ads they'd be running. If they're not doing any examination of what they're inflicting on their users, and just letting whomever's buying send whatever payloads they'd like, then yeah that's negligent at best.
"I'll pay you if you run this software on your visitors' computers without asking questions" is not a "service" you sign up for. People don't pay you as a service. That's about as shady a deal as it sounds.
IMO the ad provider is fully at fault for allowing script tags and other potentially vulnerable features in ads. Why can't the ads just be static? I mean I get why they want it, but it should not be allowed, and IMO that's where the ad provider is almost fully at fault
Websites can set CSP to not allow ad providers to serve scripts. They're the ones adding those scripts to their page, and are equally at fault. Though static ads can still point people into a fraud pipeline, and websites running those ads should be held accountable for that too.
It's fully possible to individually negotiate with someone that wants to publish an ad on your site. If you choose to take money from literally anyone who wants to do so, then why would you not be accountable when they inevitably use you to target users for fraud? You chose to take their money and not even look at what you were publishing.
I don't think we should try to split accountability at all here.
The ad platform that allows malware to be served to anyone is at fault.
As is the individual website that has selected to allow a 3rd party's code to be delivered to your machine without controlling that risk, often for very silly reasons.
You're wrong on legislating these things. If the ad network is forced into KYC for their ad distributions and they are excluded from safe harbor, like a TV network would be, then I guarantee those ads cease to exist.
This mentality of "it's to hard" doesn't get things done.
I do agree that some greedy lawyers and civil liability would solve this, but that's not a long term solution at all.
> What we need is some greedy lawyers and civil liability. Find a campaign that infected enough individuals, fire up a class-action lawsuit against the website on which the ads where actually shown (not the ad provider).
Or maybe it's even more blatent. police find a note from the day before that says "im going to kill you" then they end up dead.
Would you construe that the commission of those murders was premeditated? almost certainly yes, ergo whoever it gets pinned on, innocent or not will get premeditation applied, it doesn't take much extra here.
reply