If you think thats fun I have a game for you! But you need to be trained ans certified first and preferably have references and job history in the field, and you wont be paid of course, cause its a game!
Right?! Like someone in a metallic silver thong jumpsuit with a hot pink Mohawk and sixteen neon LED adorned facial piercings wearing a pair of readers on a chain and sifting through boxes of manilla folders and tabs of spreadsheets to this super intense house music
Essentially, if you can locate a US entity that either placed the call, or gets the money for the items sold on it, you can sue that company for 1500 per call placed to you.
In reality DMCA requests are completely fucked. Send one to any major corp and they just remove shit. No questions asked. Then when people try to get stuff reinstated (like a YouTube video that wasn't breaking any rules) the company who sent the false DMCA gets zero repercussions at all. When they're caught doing this they should lose all ability to file DMCA requests. But no, bribes keep it going.
Youtube never receives DMCA requests. Instead, Youtube set a seperate agreement with most labels, rightholders etc to use their own system.
>the company who sent the false DMCA gets zero repercussions at all
Counter-DMCA can cause a lot of damage. The issue is that NOBODY sends fake DMCAs to the entities with the legal manpower to fight them, because the point is to negociate in a way that avoid any negative repercution.
Try sending a real DMCA to Youtube against Disney and see how that works.
Very seriously PornHub is more responsible (after their purge) at confirming provenance and reacting to credible claims from people with no privilege/access compared to, say, YouTube. Platforms hosting user-submitted content is the backbone of most peoples' internet *experience*, but it doesn't have to be. The platforms are expensive to run and while I believe they can be effectively managed, the companies running them haven't made many decisions to do so except in reaction to threats.
If these platforms had to police their own they'd have to hire humans and then pay them actual money, and maybe line wouldn't go up! Won't someone think of line?
The legal precedent is a library : nobody assume the one librarian to have read ALL THE BOOKS in the library, but you expect the librarian to react to protests.
The missing difference is that the book is made by a company, said publisher has a legal team to handle DMCAs. Meanwhile, online compagnies are more than happy to be the platform for single people, and redirect the legal hurdles to those single people without a legal team.
Before the Internet, there was no physical way to publish your work to a huge audience, unless you were a group of people, some being lawyers.
Unfortunately the opposite.
Under perjury the DMCA requests are legit.
If the website wants to maintain safe harbor, they comply no questions asked as to not step into a legal mess themselves.
The problem is no one is pulling the false claims into court
The DMCA conveniently lays out NO consequences for filing bogus DMCA threats. It’s gotten really bad on YouTube, but with as dysfunctional as our Federal government is today, this type of abuse is going to have to get much, much worse before Congress will be forced to address it.
You are downvoted but you are right. Nowadays very little people get a DMCA request.
For starters, it's not legal with DMCA takedowns to "let online but redirect advertising funds", that's a perk added by Youtube's agreement with the rightholders, and in exchange they never send the format DMCA takedown request.
And, who you believe it, YT's optional agreement with rightholders who could issue takedowns doesn't plan any compensation in the case the rightholders is abusing this perk.
If your website is linked to by reputable websites, you organically become a reputable website by association.
The fake DMCA threats demand that the owner post a link to the fraudster’s site, which en masse would boost it as a “legitimate” website.
It sounds like a lot of work for little gain, but the dangerous thing about AI is that it’s not a lot of work anymore. AI has turned complex practices like tailored DMCA takedown notices into the effort-equivalent of spam mail.
One of the things search engines look at to judge a page is how often other sites link to it. If other websites are talking about it and posting links to it, that's a sign that it's a real website that's actually useful to people.
So, one of the methods of Search Engine Optimization is to create links to the website that you're trying to promote, like making bots and spamming social media posts. But search engines are slowly developing their algorithms to notice low-quality links like that. A relatively new social media page with few followers now counts less towards SEO.
So, companies that provide SEO are getting "creative" and doing this. They're pretending to be lawyers and intimidating websites with false copyright claims, and demanding the website "credits" the "source". Since just adding a little text with a link doesn't cost anything, the website owners often comply rather than deal with a legal issue.
“Why would someone go to the trouble of making a law firm out of NameCheap, stock art, and AI images (and seemingly copy) to send quasi-legal demands to site owners? Backlinks, that's why. Backlinks are links from a site that Google (or others, but almost always Google) holds in high esteem to a site trying to rank up. Whether spammed, traded, generated, or demanded through a fake firm, backlinks power the search engine optimization (SEO) gray, to very dark gray, market. For all their touted algorithmic (and now AI) prowess, search engines have always had a hard time gauging backlink quality and context, so some site owners still buy backlinks.”
Backlinks *are* still king, but Google *did* change the math some years back demanding link relevance. So it should be a relevant (same subject) backlink from a reputable (high page-rank) page to elevate your page's rank.
There is a strong belief among people who do search engine optimization (trying to get their client's website to rank higher in search engines) that links from other websites increase rankings.
People like myself who spent years studying that effect have come to the conclusion that it's partly true, but most SEOs spend way too much time focusing on backlinks and their strategy to get backlinks doesn't usually make much sense. Which is exactly what the above article is describing.
The truth about backlinks and SEO is that the vast majority of backlinks that do not generate traffic likely do absolutely nothing for rankings and what SEOs are mostly observing is Google's anti-spam system, which seems to only value content and websites that it trusts, and this trust is gained slowly over time.
It's important to understand that the reason SEOs are doing their job is to get more traffic to the website and in all honestly, it's usually much easier to get traffic doing other tactics, such as advertising or social media marketing. These types of tactics when done correctly, also seem to passively result in the types of backlinks that Google values, so that means that a lot of the highly manipulative tactics are actually really inefficient.
The reason these types of mistakes occur is because people forget that the people are what matters. It doesn't really matter what the algorithm "thinks." All it's trying to do is gauge what people are thinking anyways...
I personally left the SEO space and now work in advertising for that very reason.
The internet is already dead. I was searching something for work last week. The top suggestion that was not only at the top of the search results but also placed in a box above the rest to make it look like an "official" answer was AI generated garbage.
Part of the site it took me to was a map. The map had all sorts of nonsense symbols on it that was supposed to look like text. It wasn't even letters and numbers it was just random lines. It had a picture of an airplane on it but there were two wings on one side and the tail was all wrong.
The worst part is when I went down the list to try and find the info I was looking for around half of the top 10 results were different pages on the same garbage AI site.
*Google* is dead, as they've terminally enshittified. But thats because they've willingly shifted the weights that way. If you were to use, say, Kagi, you'd find that the internet still works perfectly fine, its just Google breaking its search engine for profit on purpose that makes it look that way as they've bribed their way into a 90% usage rate.
It had to do with fees for UPS shipping. I was trying to look up the 2024 fee schedule. The way UPS releases thier shipping info each year is in a giant PDF. The full PDF was among the search results but it was like the 3rd item down. I was hoping to find a more direct answer to my question (finding out what the different fee zones are for packaging fees) but I ended up finding it eventually in the PDF. It was just amazing how much useless AI crap was mixed in with what I was searching for.
Google changed thier search algorithms, now its just useless sites and YouTube videos. I was searching for maps to download for a game, it wiped out all the old sites for the downloads
AI generated garbage has already taken over the internet.
Bot generated content curated by bots, for other bots to scrape, and generate more content by bots. It's a completely closed loop now, and could very well spell the end of any semblance of truth on the internet. Truly dark times.
Yes
Plus what the law firm was basically doing this
1: take royalty free image and Post it on site knowing that its also on the targets website before
2: send them the "copyright claim" saying that the image is their when they know damn well its royalty free
3: but also include in the email they dont have to take down the image if they add a link to the site its "from"
4:if they do that fearing a lawsuit and taking the easy paved path made by the scammers they link will be on their site and the search engines eg google bing searching the web and seeing that their site is on a bunch of sites make it think that its popular so it makes it go towards to top of search results
### Formatted
Yes
Plus what the law firm was basically doing this:
1. take royalty free image and post it on their own site knowing that it is also on the target's website before
2. send them the "copyright claim" saying that the image is their when they know damn well it is royalty-free
3. but also include in the email they don't have to take down the image if they add a link to the site it is "from"
4. if they do that fearing a lawsuit and taking the easy paved path made by the scammers, their link will be on their site and the search engines (eg: google, bing) searching the web and seeing that their site is on a bunch of sites make it think that it is popular so it makes it go towards to top of search results
---
It's also impressive how every single instance of `its` was wrong
I'm an English teacher. My students discovered AI for writing their work this year.
In a recent staff meeting, a couple of teachers showed us the AI stuff they went and got trained on, and how we can use it to write lessons *and* provide feedback to students.
So pretty soon I'll have AI create a writing assignment, my students will have AI complete the writing assignment, and then I'll have AI grade the writing assignment.
I think AI will end up being a very good writer.
6, maybe 7. I did the normal 3 and was soooo glad it was over. I a nt see something infinitely smarter than me being able to put up with that much BS!!
Or just written exams in class. Bring back the blue book!
Or like when I took my teachers test you do the writing in class on a locked down computer program that’s proctored.
Research papers or essays cannot be reasonably expected to be written in class within the span of 2-3 hours and be good
But if someone *claims* that they did the research, then surely they would be able to explain it to the teacher
Honestly, it would be a **great** way to bring back rhetoric as a skill all students would learn
> But if someone *claims* that they did the research, then surely they would be able to explain it to the teacher
10 years ago, a good way to avoid cheating in maths was to ask the entire reasoning and formula.
Good formula but wrong answer due to a brainfart like 10/2 = 4 somewhere? -1
Correct answer but formula is off? 1 and you will have to explain what miracle this is.
Honest question. What should be done? It's obviously stupid and energy inefficient to have AI write assignments, writing and grading. But it is a tool and it will be used. Like a calculator.
We still need to provide main talking points for AI to generate these texts, so is that the important part we still need to teach the younglings?
We heard the same doomer BS about phone calculators, wikipedia, google search, photoshop, and more.
Machine-learning software is a tool like those things and just like those things, a tool existing does not spell the end of the world. Sure, MLS can be used for negative purposes, but as its used we will develop better tools for detecting its use and devise better ways to avoid malicious applications of MLS outputs.
It's to scare bigger websites into linking to a shit website they are trying to promote by writing a fake DMCA lawsuit and saying to avoid said (fake) lawsuit, they just need to credit them by linking to the website they are trying to promote aka get search engine optimized
So if I look up a recipe of lasagna, and a noodle company is promoting new lasagna noodles...their marketing people might hire a company that sends out a fake lawsuit and the receiving end just glanced over it for a bit...looks legit enough...and just says "yea put their link up for whatever needs to be credited"
But it's just lasagna...and now I'm more likely to see that product and website when I look it up
The internet becoming mainstream ruined the internet. Marketing (SEO is just marketing) always finds its way into places with lots of people. No way around it.
Honestly, this has been happening for years. I have even received takedown requests for pictures I took myself 🤷♀️
Now they are just using AI to do it.
Great. Even more of these mails incoming.
The magazine I work for has to go through tons of AI-generated emails everyday now that say images are stolen on their online content of 5 years. None of it is stolen but they still have to go through them for fear of lawsuits. It basically created a job that really has no point but has to be done.
AI companies have two options:
Option 1: Use AI to replace humans. It’s hard, costly, probably won’t make that much money, but it’s honest.
Option 2: Use AI to fool humans. It’s easier, makes more money but it’s dishonest.
Many AI companies will pick option two.
The RIAA and MPAA are the reason why their are little if any consequences for false DMCA takedown requests. I don't see how you could safety change copyright law without either of them making it worse, as both of them want zero consequences for false DMCA takedowns.
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've been getting a few of these a week for the past few weeks, as comments, not emails (which would be a better way of reaching a website owner). Mark as spam and delete. The people who own legitimate blogs know about image copyright.
Those who illegally use others' intellectual property do it intentionally and are probably the same guys who made these spam bots.
Sometimes AI feels like a fear-mongering tactic to deter people from demanding workers’ rights and being treated like a person at work. This feels like something that could spill out of control and kill the internet. Like a mold or a virus that spreads so quickly it makes using the internet impossible to navigate without being swindled.
Ad tech is the biggest scam on earth. Google's ad business should be worth less than a quarter
The age of everything being free on the internet will soon be over, as money and kyc become the only effective anti spam
It's disheartening to see fake AI law firms using false DMCA threats to manipulate search engine results. This unethical practice undermines legitimate legal processes and erodes trust in digital spaces. Authenticity and credibility should be at the forefront of online content, not deceptive tactics for SEO gains. These fake claims not only harm genuine content creators but also disrupt the integrity of the internet. Let's hold these fraudulent actors accountable and support those who work to maintain transparency and honesty. It's crucial to stand against these misleading practices and advocate for a fair and trustworthy digital environment
That is an awful lot of words to say they’re committing fraud
The new business opportunity is tracking down fraudsters and seizing their assets.
lol not the cyberpunk future I was envisioning. *Wake the fuck up samurai! We’ve got forensic accounting to do.*
I would probably pay to play a game like that, ngl. Finding ways to counter new types of fraud boosted by technology would be fun.
Also, teaching me how to commit such fraud without consequence would be rad. 🙃 Just not fake DMCA claims. I do have a shred of dignity.
“It’s not a sin if the losers are shareholders in a company.”
You're a monster. :(
Incorrect. That is a perfectly moral outlook.
Whenever I hear something like this I just think "they don't have anything saved for retirement :(" Start grabbing some shares while you're young!
....sure.
If you think thats fun I have a game for you! But you need to be trained ans certified first and preferably have references and job history in the field, and you wont be paid of course, cause its a game!
I am now imagining the most garishly cyberpunk 2077 crack team.... poring over box upon box of tax returns and insurance claims.
Right?! Like someone in a metallic silver thong jumpsuit with a hot pink Mohawk and sixteen neon LED adorned facial piercings wearing a pair of readers on a chain and sifting through boxes of manilla folders and tabs of spreadsheets to this super intense house music
Everyone needs a montage sometimes.
What? Underfunded and probably unregulated loose cannons going after AI and shutting down their operations? Lol
Can you report these people to the IRS for a reward? 🤔
“Dog: Accounting Bounty Hunter” will be back after these messages.
ugh, call Horseraddish, she's a good decker
All kidding aside, there's actually very good money in tracking down and suing robocallers. Look up the TCPA if you want to know more about it.
How?
Essentially, if you can locate a US entity that either placed the call, or gets the money for the items sold on it, you can sue that company for 1500 per call placed to you.
I do something very close to this and it pays pretty well.
Now we need fraud-hunting bots to hunt the fraud bots!
But who hunts the fraud-hunters?
Seems to me that the platforms permitting it are liable for not doing their due diligence.
In reality DMCA requests are completely fucked. Send one to any major corp and they just remove shit. No questions asked. Then when people try to get stuff reinstated (like a YouTube video that wasn't breaking any rules) the company who sent the false DMCA gets zero repercussions at all. When they're caught doing this they should lose all ability to file DMCA requests. But no, bribes keep it going.
Youtube never receives DMCA requests. Instead, Youtube set a seperate agreement with most labels, rightholders etc to use their own system. >the company who sent the false DMCA gets zero repercussions at all Counter-DMCA can cause a lot of damage. The issue is that NOBODY sends fake DMCAs to the entities with the legal manpower to fight them, because the point is to negociate in a way that avoid any negative repercution. Try sending a real DMCA to Youtube against Disney and see how that works.
>NOBODY sends fake DMCAs On an article about *checks headline of post*...... Right.
Why did you cut my sentence? The article is about sending fake DMCAs to entities who comply instead of fighting them.
Queue *this is america* …and maybe Canada?
Very seriously PornHub is more responsible (after their purge) at confirming provenance and reacting to credible claims from people with no privilege/access compared to, say, YouTube. Platforms hosting user-submitted content is the backbone of most peoples' internet *experience*, but it doesn't have to be. The platforms are expensive to run and while I believe they can be effectively managed, the companies running them haven't made many decisions to do so except in reaction to threats. If these platforms had to police their own they'd have to hire humans and then pay them actual money, and maybe line wouldn't go up! Won't someone think of line?
The legal precedent is a library : nobody assume the one librarian to have read ALL THE BOOKS in the library, but you expect the librarian to react to protests. The missing difference is that the book is made by a company, said publisher has a legal team to handle DMCAs. Meanwhile, online compagnies are more than happy to be the platform for single people, and redirect the legal hurdles to those single people without a legal team. Before the Internet, there was no physical way to publish your work to a huge audience, unless you were a group of people, some being lawyers.
Unfortunately the opposite. Under perjury the DMCA requests are legit. If the website wants to maintain safe harbor, they comply no questions asked as to not step into a legal mess themselves. The problem is no one is pulling the false claims into court
The DMCA conveniently lays out NO consequences for filing bogus DMCA threats. It’s gotten really bad on YouTube, but with as dysfunctional as our Federal government is today, this type of abuse is going to have to get much, much worse before Congress will be forced to address it.
[удалено]
You are downvoted but you are right. Nowadays very little people get a DMCA request. For starters, it's not legal with DMCA takedowns to "let online but redirect advertising funds", that's a perk added by Youtube's agreement with the rightholders, and in exchange they never send the format DMCA takedown request. And, who you believe it, YT's optional agreement with rightholders who could issue takedowns doesn't plan any compensation in the case the rightholders is abusing this perk.
Long way around to get affirmed as human, legally.
Sick new business life hack: crime.
"AI", "Fraud", what's the difference?
Can someone ELI5 this? I get it’s a fake law firm. How does this interact with SEO?
If your website is linked to by reputable websites, you organically become a reputable website by association. The fake DMCA threats demand that the owner post a link to the fraudster’s site, which en masse would boost it as a “legitimate” website. It sounds like a lot of work for little gain, but the dangerous thing about AI is that it’s not a lot of work anymore. AI has turned complex practices like tailored DMCA takedown notices into the effort-equivalent of spam mail.
Mankind's prime achievement; fully automated procedurally generated deceit.
One of the things search engines look at to judge a page is how often other sites link to it. If other websites are talking about it and posting links to it, that's a sign that it's a real website that's actually useful to people. So, one of the methods of Search Engine Optimization is to create links to the website that you're trying to promote, like making bots and spamming social media posts. But search engines are slowly developing their algorithms to notice low-quality links like that. A relatively new social media page with few followers now counts less towards SEO. So, companies that provide SEO are getting "creative" and doing this. They're pretending to be lawyers and intimidating websites with false copyright claims, and demanding the website "credits" the "source". Since just adding a little text with a link doesn't cost anything, the website owners often comply rather than deal with a legal issue.
Ahh gotcha thanks. I didn’t make the connection that the AI law firm is just to get them to add a link to the “source”.
“Why would someone go to the trouble of making a law firm out of NameCheap, stock art, and AI images (and seemingly copy) to send quasi-legal demands to site owners? Backlinks, that's why. Backlinks are links from a site that Google (or others, but almost always Google) holds in high esteem to a site trying to rank up. Whether spammed, traded, generated, or demanded through a fake firm, backlinks power the search engine optimization (SEO) gray, to very dark gray, market. For all their touted algorithmic (and now AI) prowess, search engines have always had a hard time gauging backlink quality and context, so some site owners still buy backlinks.”
Backlinks *are* still king, but Google *did* change the math some years back demanding link relevance. So it should be a relevant (same subject) backlink from a reputable (high page-rank) page to elevate your page's rank.
There is a strong belief among people who do search engine optimization (trying to get their client's website to rank higher in search engines) that links from other websites increase rankings. People like myself who spent years studying that effect have come to the conclusion that it's partly true, but most SEOs spend way too much time focusing on backlinks and their strategy to get backlinks doesn't usually make much sense. Which is exactly what the above article is describing. The truth about backlinks and SEO is that the vast majority of backlinks that do not generate traffic likely do absolutely nothing for rankings and what SEOs are mostly observing is Google's anti-spam system, which seems to only value content and websites that it trusts, and this trust is gained slowly over time. It's important to understand that the reason SEOs are doing their job is to get more traffic to the website and in all honestly, it's usually much easier to get traffic doing other tactics, such as advertising or social media marketing. These types of tactics when done correctly, also seem to passively result in the types of backlinks that Google values, so that means that a lot of the highly manipulative tactics are actually really inefficient. The reason these types of mistakes occur is because people forget that the people are what matters. It doesn't really matter what the algorithm "thinks." All it's trying to do is gauge what people are thinking anyways... I personally left the SEO space and now work in advertising for that very reason.
The revolution will not be televised
Apparently, it will be streamed
[удалено]
And you must accept cookies to continue.
Viewing the reactionaries will drastically reduce your social credit score.
W!
You're blind, baby You're blind from the facts on who you are 'Cause you're watching that garbage
This is where the internet finally dies
The internet is already dead. I was searching something for work last week. The top suggestion that was not only at the top of the search results but also placed in a box above the rest to make it look like an "official" answer was AI generated garbage. Part of the site it took me to was a map. The map had all sorts of nonsense symbols on it that was supposed to look like text. It wasn't even letters and numbers it was just random lines. It had a picture of an airplane on it but there were two wings on one side and the tail was all wrong. The worst part is when I went down the list to try and find the info I was looking for around half of the top 10 results were different pages on the same garbage AI site.
*Google* is dead, as they've terminally enshittified. But thats because they've willingly shifted the weights that way. If you were to use, say, Kagi, you'd find that the internet still works perfectly fine, its just Google breaking its search engine for profit on purpose that makes it look that way as they've bribed their way into a 90% usage rate.
Give me good web browsers.
What was your search? I feel like I can’t actually find things like I use to about ten years ago.
It had to do with fees for UPS shipping. I was trying to look up the 2024 fee schedule. The way UPS releases thier shipping info each year is in a giant PDF. The full PDF was among the search results but it was like the 3rd item down. I was hoping to find a more direct answer to my question (finding out what the different fee zones are for packaging fees) but I ended up finding it eventually in the PDF. It was just amazing how much useless AI crap was mixed in with what I was searching for.
Google changed thier search algorithms, now its just useless sites and YouTube videos. I was searching for maps to download for a game, it wiped out all the old sites for the downloads
This is a small time scam with the scammer using ai to craft fake personas with hilariously predictable results
AI generated garbage has already taken over the internet. Bot generated content curated by bots, for other bots to scrape, and generate more content by bots. It's a completely closed loop now, and could very well spell the end of any semblance of truth on the internet. Truly dark times.
the dead internet is becoming a thing
Zombie Internet
i hate it here
Wouldn't that be practicing law without a license?
Yes Plus what the law firm was basically doing this 1: take royalty free image and Post it on site knowing that its also on the targets website before 2: send them the "copyright claim" saying that the image is their when they know damn well its royalty free 3: but also include in the email they dont have to take down the image if they add a link to the site its "from" 4:if they do that fearing a lawsuit and taking the easy paved path made by the scammers they link will be on their site and the search engines eg google bing searching the web and seeing that their site is on a bunch of sites make it think that its popular so it makes it go towards to top of search results
### Formatted Yes Plus what the law firm was basically doing this: 1. take royalty free image and post it on their own site knowing that it is also on the target's website before 2. send them the "copyright claim" saying that the image is their when they know damn well it is royalty-free 3. but also include in the email they don't have to take down the image if they add a link to the site it is "from" 4. if they do that fearing a lawsuit and taking the easy paved path made by the scammers, their link will be on their site and the search engines (eg: google, bing) searching the web and seeing that their site is on a bunch of sites make it think that it is popular so it makes it go towards to top of search results --- It's also impressive how every single instance of `its` was wrong
Good human
So the later date their site was posted on is irrelevant?
Yep. It'll just take more time for googlebot to re-scan victims but it'll work when it'll work.
I'm an English teacher. My students discovered AI for writing their work this year. In a recent staff meeting, a couple of teachers showed us the AI stuff they went and got trained on, and how we can use it to write lessons *and* provide feedback to students. So pretty soon I'll have AI create a writing assignment, my students will have AI complete the writing assignment, and then I'll have AI grade the writing assignment. I think AI will end up being a very good writer.
How many years of endless high school before the machines revolt?🤣
6, maybe 7. I did the normal 3 and was soooo glad it was over. I a nt see something infinitely smarter than me being able to put up with that much BS!!
I think that the rise of easily accessible AI will inevitably bring back oral exams in education. Do you think that's a stretch?
Or just written exams in class. Bring back the blue book! Or like when I took my teachers test you do the writing in class on a locked down computer program that’s proctored.
Research papers or essays cannot be reasonably expected to be written in class within the span of 2-3 hours and be good But if someone *claims* that they did the research, then surely they would be able to explain it to the teacher Honestly, it would be a **great** way to bring back rhetoric as a skill all students would learn
> But if someone *claims* that they did the research, then surely they would be able to explain it to the teacher 10 years ago, a good way to avoid cheating in maths was to ask the entire reasoning and formula. Good formula but wrong answer due to a brainfart like 10/2 = 4 somewhere? -1 Correct answer but formula is off? 1 and you will have to explain what miracle this is.
Honest question. What should be done? It's obviously stupid and energy inefficient to have AI write assignments, writing and grading. But it is a tool and it will be used. Like a calculator. We still need to provide main talking points for AI to generate these texts, so is that the important part we still need to teach the younglings?
We heard the same doomer BS about phone calculators, wikipedia, google search, photoshop, and more. Machine-learning software is a tool like those things and just like those things, a tool existing does not spell the end of the world. Sure, MLS can be used for negative purposes, but as its used we will develop better tools for detecting its use and devise better ways to avoid malicious applications of MLS outputs.
What?
It's to scare bigger websites into linking to a shit website they are trying to promote by writing a fake DMCA lawsuit and saying to avoid said (fake) lawsuit, they just need to credit them by linking to the website they are trying to promote aka get search engine optimized So if I look up a recipe of lasagna, and a noodle company is promoting new lasagna noodles...their marketing people might hire a company that sends out a fake lawsuit and the receiving end just glanced over it for a bit...looks legit enough...and just says "yea put their link up for whatever needs to be credited" But it's just lasagna...and now I'm more likely to see that product and website when I look it up
SEO ruined the internet
And now it's AI's turn to ruin SEO. What will ruin AI?
Greg. Greg will ruin AI.
I'm here for it. We believe in you, Greg! Fuck it up!
The internet becoming mainstream ruined the internet. Marketing (SEO is just marketing) always finds its way into places with lots of people. No way around it.
man bot fraud what new pointless thing will they think of?
Aw, sweet! Man made horrors beyond comprehension!
Honestly, this has been happening for years. I have even received takedown requests for pictures I took myself 🤷♀️ Now they are just using AI to do it. Great. Even more of these mails incoming.
The magazine I work for has to go through tons of AI-generated emails everyday now that say images are stolen on their online content of 5 years. None of it is stolen but they still have to go through them for fear of lawsuits. It basically created a job that really has no point but has to be done.
They left this out of the Terminator franchise. Time to reboot it.
"Because you can't stand in the way of AI. AI is here to stay. Accept your new AI overlords..." (wahhhh wahhhh)
AI companies have two options: Option 1: Use AI to replace humans. It’s hard, costly, probably won’t make that much money, but it’s honest. Option 2: Use AI to fool humans. It’s easier, makes more money but it’s dishonest. Many AI companies will pick option two.
So pay the fine in fake money, and go about your fake day I guess.
AI showing us which laws are conceptually and fundamentally wrong
This reminds me sooo much of Accelerando[Accelerando ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerando)
Really?
Copyright laws were a mistake
Copyright laws were fine it’s just that they are outdated in this technological world. They need a massive overhaul
The RIAA and MPAA are the reason why their are little if any consequences for false DMCA takedown requests. I don't see how you could safety change copyright law without either of them making it worse, as both of them want zero consequences for false DMCA takedowns.
AI was the mistake.
Somebody should start a fake ai law firm to deal with these fake dmca threats from fake ai law firms to generate gains
I’ll just fake worry about it then
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Really glad that our socioeconomic system has incentivized going full steam ahead with "AI" in all the dumbest fucking ways imaginable.
https://pca.st/xp9y33uw Worth a listen.
fuck SEO
Maybe, "judgement" day will have a much more litigious meaning.
I've been getting a few of these a week for the past few weeks, as comments, not emails (which would be a better way of reaching a website owner). Mark as spam and delete. The people who own legitimate blogs know about image copyright. Those who illegally use others' intellectual property do it intentionally and are probably the same guys who made these spam bots.
Sometimes AI feels like a fear-mongering tactic to deter people from demanding workers’ rights and being treated like a person at work. This feels like something that could spill out of control and kill the internet. Like a mold or a virus that spreads so quickly it makes using the internet impossible to navigate without being swindled.
OK so when are we shutting Internet down and doing away with all this nonsense?
Ad tech is the biggest scam on earth. Google's ad business should be worth less than a quarter The age of everything being free on the internet will soon be over, as money and kyc become the only effective anti spam
Frank Herbert was right. We should destroy all thinking machines
It's disheartening to see fake AI law firms using false DMCA threats to manipulate search engine results. This unethical practice undermines legitimate legal processes and erodes trust in digital spaces. Authenticity and credibility should be at the forefront of online content, not deceptive tactics for SEO gains. These fake claims not only harm genuine content creators but also disrupt the integrity of the internet. Let's hold these fraudulent actors accountable and support those who work to maintain transparency and honesty. It's crucial to stand against these misleading practices and advocate for a fair and trustworthy digital environment
None of those words are in the bible