Der Name ist nicht das einzige, was da in der öffentlichen Kommunikation schiefläuft. Mein Eindruck ist deren Message kommt kaum an in der Breite.

You are not wrong, but I think public perception is different. It doesn’t help, that OpenAI is pushing their models as problem solvers:

GPT-4 can solve difficult problems with greater accuracy, thanks to its broader general knowledge and problem solving abilities. (https://openai.com/gpt-4)

I have both and prefer the digital one. I find it much easier to drive a precise speed with it.

I think a lot of things that are proposed here could not be done by an AGI on an computer, no matter how intelligent. Consider this alternative scenario: You have an exceptionally intelligent young human adult with a computer locked in a room. They have no specialized education or anything. They are just extremely intelligent. What could you achieve through such a person?

Discovery of new physics is out of the question. That would need experiments.

Same here. I think it only works for durations I often use like cooking eggs. Might be result of unintended training.

I think that is threads.net, no?

Copyleft should absolutely work. Not sure what we are currently doing, but nearly every toot or reply in the fediverse is copyrighted content. You must explicitly or implicitly give a license to every instance to use and redistribute that content. I could imagine a field in ActivityPub that declares the license, for example using Creative Commons licenses. If this license forbids commercial use, Meta can’t use it. Also nobody else, such as journalists? Probably needs more thought on how a license should work. It is definitely a sharp sword!

I don’t think this is direct interference from IBM. RedHat is still largely its own organization within IBM, though this will likely fade over time. I could imagine IBM leadership setting for example revenue goals that Red Hat is trying to achieve this way. Also, IBM is not really hostile to Linux and open source in general.

I think it is fair to see this as a (IMHO misguided) Red Hat decision.

Having a discussion to form an opinion in the community is a very democratic and adult thing. This helps everyone to make up their own mind and share their opinion. In the end I believe it is very important to defederate instances that cater to conspiracy theories and spread misinformation. The reach of such content in the fediverse must be limited and it is a statement by the community that forms culture.

I think this will be harder to stop than we’re thinking.

Fully agree. We can only decide if we want to give them a chance to be good citizens of the fediverse or not.

That would be an option. However, non-Meta users would not have agreed to any terms that grant them a right to use the content. So, I could imagine that individual users could object to them using their content or even ask for compensation if they use it in any way to make money. Then again, Meta has the lawyers to fight this out. Until there is a final decision, maybe they already killed the competition as @AkumaFoxwell@feddit.de suggests…

Does anyone know what there business model could be here? Technically they could get access to all federated content, just as regular instances do. But legally they don’t own that content nor do they know what country it origi ated in. This sounds like a legal nightmare to me. Would they even be allowed to process content in any form created by EU users under GDPR?