Carbon taxes still allow you to waste as much energy as you want. It just makes it more expensive. The objective is to put a limit on how much they are allowed to waste.

I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know how to make a law without possible exploits, but i don’t think it would be hard for an actual lawyer to make a law with this spirit that is not easily avoided.

Ah yes, the sphere burger

You can make the limit per-company instead. With big fines if you make thousands of companies to get around the law.

Energy consumption limit. Every AI product has a consumption limit of X GJ. After that, the server just shuts off.

The limit should be high enough to not discourage research that would make generative AI more energy efficient, but it should be low enough that commercial users would be paying a heavy price for their waste of energy usage.

Additionally, data usage consent for generative AI should be opt-in. Not opt-out.

Bulldozing all the houses and building higher density homes is what should be done to fix the housing crisis. And the car-depndency and plenty other issues.

Or doctors. Or almost any other profession. If anything, artists usually have better handwriting because they actually care that their handwriting is pretty.

Why do millionaires pay more taxes than minimum-wage workers?

Whatever answer you come up to my question can probably answer yours.

The alternative is banks hoarding real state without any need to rent it out or sell it soon. They can just wait until prices get higher.

That’s why in most countries people pay way less property taxes in the house they live in.

I don’t think Microsoft invented scrapping. Or LLM training.

Also, GitHub doesn’t have an issue with Microsoft scraping its data. They can just directly access whatever data they want. And rate-limiting non logged in accounts won’t affect Microsoft’s LLM training at all.

I’m not defending a monopolist because of monopolist actions. First of all because GitHub doesn’t have any kind of monopoly. There are plenty of git forges. And second of all. How does this make their position on the market stronger? If anything, it makes it weaker.

No. I cannot find the flaws in my reasoning. Because you are not attacking my reasoning, you are saying that i am on the side of the bad people, and the bad people are bad, and you are opposed to the bad people, therefore you are right.

The world is more than black or white. GitHub rate-limiting non-logged-in users makes sense, and is the expected result in the age of web scrapping LLM training.

Yes, the parent company of GitHub also does web scrapped for the purpose of training LLMs. I don’t see what that has to do with defending themselves from other scrappers.

It’s not the same making API costs unbearable for a social media user and limiting the rate non-logged-in users.

You can still use GitHub without being logged in. You can still use GitHub without almost any limit on a free account.

You cannot even use reddit on a third party app with an account with reddit gold.

Or we just realize that GitHub without logging in is a service we are getting for free. And when there’s something free, there’s someone trying to exploit it. Using GitHub while logged in is also free and has none of these limits, while allowing them to much easier block exploiters.

If they can charge for it. It means they can block it. https://www.wired.com/story/stack-overflow-will-charge-ai-giants-for-training-data/

You can also rate-limit. Blacklist known scrapper IPs.

And if it doesn’t work. You make signing-in not optional. Which makes rate-limiting way easier.

The rate of human data consumption is much lower than LLM’s. The humans won’t even notice that they have a rate limit. At most they would only notice the need to create a stack overflow account.

Yes. But not just in the “obvious” way.

I first started to contribute back when LLMs first appeared. Then SO allowed became LLM training grounds. Which made me stop contributing instantly.

I guess a not-insignificant amount of people stopped answering questions, which means less search results, which ends in less traffic.

I’m sure the fall wouldn’t be as big as it is if they didn’t allow LLMs to train on their data.

As I said in the comment. You couldn’t direct the pigs back then. There weren’t carrots in a stick. There weren’t even carrots. Saddles are very old items.

Firefox is not chromium based. You can install unlock origin and have no ads.

At the start, horses didn’t exist. But saddles did. Why? Because pigs can use saddles too. You couldn’t even direct them, you’d just be on top of them while they wandered on their own.

Saddles weren’t a tool, they were just a fun useless toy. Which makes sense you couldn’t craft them. It was just a silly reward for finding a dungeon.

Then they introduced horses, which used the same saddles, but forgot why they weren’t craftable in the first place.

EDIT: they did have a use. It was for the achievement of falling to death from a pig. Which makes it make extra-sense it being uncraftable. That is, until they introduced horses.

There’s a reason just in time manufacturing took over the world. Storage is expensive.

You have to pay that mortgage, it doesn’t matter if your house can cover it or not.

What are you gonna do? Sell your house to pay off your mortgage? And then where do you live?

If you own a single house, the synchronized raise/fall of house prices only affect the speed at which you can “upgrade” to a more expensive home. So prices going down benefit you.

Everyone needs one house. When you sell your house, you have to buy (or rent) another one. If the value of your house drops by the same amount as everyone else’s, then you lost nothing.

In fact, you probably gained because if you plan to buy a more expensive house, you have to pay less.

The only people for whom the fall of housing prices would be negative are those that plan on having less houses. That is, you have multiple, and want to sell some.

The median citizen is no real state investor.