Does Section 230 still hold if the platform transforms your content to target audience? YT does automagically switch thumbnails for AI hallucinated ones, adds video effects, filters, force translates your content.
It's not rocket science. If they want to revoke a license, they should buy it back at the price they sold it. Consumer law should dictate there be no permissible alternative, and should apply retroactively.
Personally, I dont like theses digital "purchase" licenses at all. The only "rights" DRM is used for is to restrict those of the consumer - a far cry from the transferable digital rights that big-media touted that resulted in them receiving overreaching protections for copyright in the first place.
Unless they are transferable, all digital licenses should be short term (<= 1mo) and marked clearly as a rental to avoid consumer confusion.
Some of us use genAI as an accessibility tool. It enables people to write and publish work that otherwise wouldn't exist.
Some people already dismiss genuinely useful content solely based on the use of AI to assist in writing it - i am not sure what flagging would do other than to reinforce that prejudice.
I posted a couple of my articles here, and the one that got traction was generally well received (and also received some constructive feedback from those who acknowledged that is was AI assisted) - but it is evident across HN there is a vocal minority who outright dismiss content solely because it was "AI generated" completely disregarding the content itself. I appreciate this is personal taste, or LLM fatigue, or whatever, but its not really constructive.
If what you want to do is target the slop while not targeting the quality content, then that is what the voting mechanism already does. If people don't like something they can downvote it. Flagging content as AI generated is just a dogwhistle to those who want to downvote AI generated content. If anything, id rather see a rule that stops people commenting on stuff just to dismiss it as "LLM slop".
Its already trivial to avoid detection with fine-tuned humanisers [i] built on non-instruction-tuned models. That makes the flag mostly useless - or worse - a way of penalising any content you disagree with. I'd rather not hide what I am doing and have something that I feel reads well than hide it and sacrifice the message to satisfy a vocal minority.
> It enables people to write and publish work that otherwise wouldn't exist.
Why is that a good thing? If you aren't going to bother to write something, other people shouldn't have to bother to read it, so please don't put it in the world at all.
Gatekeeping based on skill and motivation is good!
Well yeah, if people are unable to write, then I don't want to read their writing. That sounds harsh but it's the unfortunate reality. I also don't want to look at paintings made by people who can't paint, or listen to music made by people who are tone-deaf.
So why are you doing that by sloppyfying your own writing? If you want people to take interest in your writing, it should probably actually be your own writing.
I am VERY clear that i use assistive AI with my writing. I dont believe it is "sloppyfying" - I believe it makes it much more readable than i would otherwise achieve, not least because I simply wouldn't publish it without.
Your prejudice/ableism in calling it "sloppyfying" is exactly the problem I mention with allowing it to be a flag.
Made a talking head with some idle animation and visemes and some broken crt-like effects. The meat of it is only a few hundred kB - i can probably make it even smaller with making the graphics smaller.
A bit of post processing on some narration for extracting mouth shapes and it seems to work quite nice as a low-footprint retro talking head. Im thinking i'll make it some kind of chatbot interface.
Its very much a WIP, please don't be too critical - i am only sharing because it is fun :)
> Your Claude subscription—which is a cheaper version of the Anthropic API—is restricted to use with the Claude Code CLI/Desktop, Claude CoWork, or @Claude in Slack.
Thats not true at all. You can use the Agent SDK [1], which uses your subscription [2]. I use it via ACP [3] with custom system prompts and tooling. I have found it very powerful and flexible. It has its own agent loop, of course, so maybe thats the limitation using it with opencode?
[2] They were talking about giving credits for the SDK usage rather than it using your allowance directly, but that seems to have been put on hold for now. If and when that changes, I will likely jump ship, but I am more than happy with it right now.
[3] there isn't an official ACP wrapper - zed have one but its quite limited. its trivial to build one though, or you can just use the SDK directly and wire it into your interface of choice.
The fun part is they planned for this to change to API pricing. When they announced that I started shifting off claude code immediately so I could keep my custom tooling. Damage is done. I won't build up around claude code or agent sdk any longer because I expect this to change. The announcement says they're "pausing" the change so expect this and avoid the lock-in!
By analysing a specific piece of prose you probably arent using the same chunk as would otherwise be analysed and can end up with a different result.
reply