They have, but they are not in charge. Apple’s goal is to make money; everything else comes as an afterthought.

I’m not so sure – YouTube is much larger than you might think. It’s not the video platform you grew up with anymore. No one in this world can match the backlog and content density/diversity of YouTube, not even all streaming services combined. People complaining that YouTube is dying because a few YouTubers “retire” from their main gig or that it’s not the same anymore don’t understand how YouTube works. They might not comprehend that the time of their “bubble” has come to an end. When this happens, there are already five new bubbles/niches that are even bigger, and you might not have heard of them, but they are more successful than their “predecessor.” The old bubble is still there to consume in the backlog. Someday in the future, AI will have a field day with the data accumulated via YouTube.

It is transforming, for sure, but I don’t think it will destroy itself completely. In a sense, you can say it will destroy whatever view you had of YouTube as a platform because it is not what it once was.

To my knowledge, YouTube will hit the billion-user milestone this year (Netflix currently at ~250 million paid users). If we look at other data trends from streaming services, it suggests that YouTube will grow more over the coming years. I don’t know how anyone can match YouTube as a whole. In certain niches, sure, but as a whole, it would be like fighting windmills. There’s a reason no one tries to tackle YouTube as a platform and only goes for certain niches.

I mean, if I were an investor looking at this, I would also get excited about making this change - much less risk, less cost, less customer support, etc., all for basically the same output in revenue. In other words, if I cut the small business (6% of value but over 100k accounts to handle) out of the model, I can make more money because the cost reduction is higher than the loss of revenue. And in the long run, when “big game customers” jump ship, I just downsize some more. I also don’t need to invest but can be sure it will generate a certain amount of revenue, as long as I do not squeeze the relevant customer groups too hard. This strategy is very feasible and relatively risk-free. I am not a fan of it, but I think a lot of software companies will go this way after they establish themselves in a market.

Well, I hope you are right. xd

It just seems to me like a monopolization of the market by the big tech corps, which won’t be beneficial to the majority, but at least a few billionaires will get richer.

I was recently invited to the Google research center where they presented their new AI assistant features, which should be coming this year. It was weird; it was at the same time more capable than I thought and more restrictive than one would assume. It’s like not even Google knows exactly what to do with it, or what it should be able to do, or what exactly it is capable of. I also once got to try an “uncensored” / “unrestricted” information model, which was actually a bit scary but far more useful than any of the current “restricted” chatbots. I’m sure AI will change things up, but how, when, and why I don’t know, and the more I find out, the more unsure I am about predictions, besides the one that big corps will try to monopolize the market.

The funny thing is, copyright doesn’t even matter; at least half of the world’s market couldn’t care less about copyright, especially if it’s from the “west.” They certainly won’t suddenly start respecting copyright law. They will use and develop AI without the restriction of copyright. All this talk about copyright and the law, and all the copyright suits against AI and tech firms, will be fruitless since we either forget copyright like we used to know it, or we get left behind in development because we need to respect the copyright of everything and make contracts with every big outlet, etc. Big tech knows that, so they walk this gray zone walk to still train AI on copyrighted material but somehow proclaim they are not copyright-dependent.

I’m not saying this is a good development, just that I think we need to reassess how we treat copyright on a fundamental level under the current development structure of AI.

We need to slow down the development of AI and hinder monopolization of the market. My guess is it’s too late, but we can still hope that maybe this time it will be different.

What issue? That unpaid interns or those one step below are not agreeing with long-term political decisions that were practically made before they were born and only understand the surface of the subject?

Yeah, thanks. I think I’ll just ignore those as well if I were in a position of power, and you would too.

What is this “moral responsibility,” and why is it just now relevant? There were, are, and will be much bigger and worse issues, like climate change, but no one is talking about moral responsibility and blasting the ones who are in charge like it is happening right now with the Israel/Palestine crisis.

Maybe it is just the age of massive misinformation and propaganda campaigns from all sides (some are engaging much more than others) with which I have a problem. Because, in the end, I applaud people who stand up for what they think is right, like those interns. It just comes across as too selective to be a principle. I mean, the Israel/Palestine issue has been ongoing for what? 50 years? It’s not even the first hot phase or siege of Gaza. And then you start working in politics and then you became aware of the politics and stopped working there? What?

In my opinion, you maybe should first deliver something before you go giving empty promises and sign a contract. But hey, that’s Musk’s motto: overpromise, underdeliver.

Old fart companies, lol. Oh, you mean the old farts who are more or less on budget and time and delivered what they promised?

If SpaceX, i.e., Musk’s rhetoric, is not one of the reasons Artemis (3) mission will get delayed significantly, I’m gonna eat a shoe. As someone who has done budget calculations for global projects, I can tell you the biggest factor in calculating the cost is time. Since the timeline is off, the money needs to be off as well, as these two are connected.

No need to say we are way off this timeline, and one of the reasons is the absolutely bullshit timeline Musk seems to think is reasonable but is actually unobtainable for the company SpaceX. I don’t know why he does this every time; eventually, he has to backpedal anyway.

Some not very deep examples:

• Hyperloop - a complete bullshit concept, made no sense to anyone who had actually used their brain, basically a scam, very stupid promises.
• Tesla self-driving - I don’t think I have to say anything here…
• Tesla Cybertruck - I mean, what? How was this design greenlit for serial production?
• Tesla auto taxi fleet - I mean, who actually believed that…
• Tesla semis - They are practically nonexistent.

Etc., etc.

Musk’s track record is not great, and at this point, we definitely should not give him the benefit of the doubt.

This happens rarely, and if it happens, the chances of it being someone we know from the media are almost 0; that would be all under the table. The “best” are the ones you don’t hear about because they are too busy working on actual stuff, same in most science fields.

Most of them are recruited in “normal” ways; there is much more talent around these days. No need to engage with criminals and put them on actual sensitive stuff. Also, they get paid more than you might think; the people leading these projects are not stupid and make a simple mistake like underpaying talent they still need.

I think he’s pointing out that in the future, this could lead to regulatory measures by the government because they get pressured by the big corps that AI locally is dangerous, but AI with big corps is all good and the right way. Which is an understandable concern. It’s not about you using whatever model you’re using; it’s about the broader philosophy of how AI should be integrated into our world. He’s saying the big corps are trying to monopolize the AI market, which is valid because that’s what’s happening right now.

In other words, the market is nearly saturated now, and Evernote makes its money with business people and institutions who often adhere to the “don’t change a working system” principle regarding their “tools.” Most of them will just keep paying if the functions are needed and already integrated.

It’s a model most of these types of companies adopt sooner or later if they are for profit, and investors see the potential of this business as almost exhausted. It’s: grow, establish, grip, and squeeze.

If you really want, you can use almost any cloud-based solution that allows you to sync folders, with some caveats.

I use Obsidian with my Google Drive; it took me about 5 minutes to set up, and it works like a charm now. However, you need to set it up on every device you plan on using for synchronization. Also, you cannot work on the same document on two devices simultaneously. Otherwise, it works as you’d expect.

It’s definitely messier than the Obsidian cloud, but for my needs, syncing it via Google Drive is more than enough.

There is one if you use the discovery features. Well, it’s not a dislike, but I think it does the same thing, maybe?

This isn’t about AI and has nothing to do with whatever bullshits Musk is/was up to. They basically integrated drone tech into a Cessna and flew it remotely from a ground base. It’s drone tech combined with an autopilot—fairly basic and proven, already utilized in military, agriculture, and hobby industries. Also its for cargo not humans.

Lol, you just described every open content platform out there. This is not a YouTube-specific problem. You can’t personally control what’s uploaded on these sites, but you can choose if and how you interact with it.