Seems like a weekend hack to set up a fediverse-backed categorized market that, when you want to buy something- forwards to a “buy our download” link of the seller’s choice. Rabid moralists would have to challenge each producer/indie developer individually to take things down.

The real crux is to build a nice user interface on top of it so people would actually use it.

MasterCard’s and Valve’s statements seems to point at Stripe and PayPal as the ones who folded to the pressure. These payment processors then cited MasterCard’s rules to back up their change in policy.

MasterCard now clarifying that the payment processors are over-interpreting the rules and anything legal is ok seems a very good thing here. Valve should be able to go back to Stripe and PayPal with this and say: “Hey, you’ve misunderstood the rules you are quoting; MasterCard themselves say anything legal is ok, and that is the exact policy we’ve been using!”

Does the marketing matter when the reason for the offending output is that the user spent significant deliberate effort in coaxing the LLM to output what it did? It still seems like MS Paint with extra steps to me.

I get not wanting LLMs to unprompted output “offensive content”. Just like it would be noteworthy if “Clear canvas” in MS Paint sometimes yielded a violent bloody photograph. But, that isn’t what is going on in OPs clickbait.

And, the thing is, LLMs are quite well protected. Look what I coaxed MS Paint to say with almost no effort! Don’t get me started on plain pen and paper! Which we put in the hands of TODDLERS!

I very much understand wanting to have a say against our data being freely harvested for AI training. But this article’s call for a general opt-out of interacting with AI seems a bit regressive. Many aspects of this and other discussions about the “AI revolution” remind me about the Mitchell and Web skit on the start of the bronze age: https://youtu.be/nyu4u3VZYaQ