Mastodawn

Eduardo Diaz Comellas Jan 26

After committing one of the greatest thefts of all information known to mankind, ChatGPT started showing Ads to everyone while killing all independent websites,wikis, forums, journalism sites, artists' work, songs, and blogs. The circle of life is complete. All this talk of a "changing world" ends with selling your data to the highest bidder while destroying human creators and environments. What innovation.

https://openai.com/index/our-approach-to-advertising-and-expanding-access/

Our approach to advertising and expanding access to ChatGPT

OpenAI plans to test advertising in the U.S. for ChatGPT’s free and Go tiers to expand affordable access to AI worldwide, while protecting privacy, trust, and answer quality.

Paul - Antifa. LGBTQ+ safe.Jan 16

@nixCraft First they force that crap onto the world and make people 'dependent' on it, and then - of course - ads. Because ads make the world go round, now at the cost of insane energy consumption.

Blagh. I've never used it and everything my coworkers handed me 'from crapgpt' failed gloriously. It's not for me.

Don Hawkins - W7DAH Jan 16

@paulk @nixCraft Spot-on! 💯

@paulk @nixCraft

LLM apps now use far less energy than traditional search engines. They also save the power wasted on loading countless ad-heavy pages. Overall, finding information through an LLM is likely more energy-efficient—and much faster, too.

The great question is how to keep live a minimum number of content creators to supply enough good information to the LLMs.

Although also is true that we will also have a lot of energy to the planet if several "copy & paste" sites close doors.

Paul - Antifa. LGBTQ+ safe.Jan 17

@sergi Do you have sources for that about llm and energy? Curious...

Paul - Antifa. LGBTQ+ safe.Jan 17

@sergi @nixCraft

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032125008329#sec5

5.1. Conclusions
The emergence of LLMs represents one of the most disruptive technological advancements in recent years [187]. Their escalating computational demands underscores an impending surge in electricity demand, posing unignorable electricity and environmental implications [188]. Consequently, the accessibility and sustainability of electricity for LLMs have emerged as pressing issues [189].

@paulk @nixCraft

English is not my native language, and I didn’t express myself correctly in my previous message. Now I’ll use an AI to translate 😅

What I meant is that the energy consumption of LLM queries decreases every year and is getting closer to that of regular searches.

Keep in mind that we’re comparing a technology with 30 years of maturity to another that’s barely 3 years old.I asked Perplexity for details.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/recent-trustful-studies-compar-fT.U6mIgQWOES5W9EsVIxg

1/3

@paulk @nixCraft

By the way, I still believe we should compare the energy consumed by the search engine plus what users consume while visiting multiple pages, with all their images and ads—or even doing several searches—and the much longer screen and computer time, which uses far more energy than the few seconds an LLM takes to find the answer you need

Are you not considering that energy consumption? Not to mention the quality of the answer you get and how immediately it arrives with LLM

2/3

@paulk @nixCraft

In short, comparing traditional searches with an LLM query is like comparing horse-drawn carriages with motorcycles. Only a nostalgic person would want to ride a carriage once in a while—and just to take a selfie. 😅

3/3

Paul - Antifa. LGBTQ+ safe.Jan 17

@sergi I definitely consider all that. But all the streaming of stuff, all the bitcoins, all the other weird things on the internet have not made Microsoft, Google and Meta (to name a few) power up special nuclear reactors to make sure their ai systems have enough power to run.

I know there is a HUGE difference between predictive ai and generative ai. Predictive can run locally and saves lives, does good things.

Generative ai... not so much yet.

Happy ai-ing!

RyanParsley Jan 16

@nixCraft iMadeThis.jpg

@nixCraft AI is modern drugs/addiction. Get 'em hooked then abuse.

@nixCraft, you know, folks, I rewatch Idiocracy once in a while and each time it becomes more and more of a horror movie than a comedy

no brain no pain Jan 16

@nixCraft …and the „principles“ will soon change for increasing profit…

MisterMaker Jan 16

Sir l33tname Jan 16

@nixCraft it's what they always do take something and then make it but worse

Airbnb - worse hotel
uber - worse taxi
nfts - worse jpgs
and so on

Tired Panda Jan 16

@nixCraft bad but faster and worse

@nixCraft this is good news right? They went for ads before reaching critical mass of dependence which means it’s only downhill from now on. Silly mistake.

Elaine Jackson-Pimentel 🦄🌈Jan 16

@[email protected] The claim paints AI (like ChatGPT) as a thief destroying creators, but recent U.S. court rulings (e.g., Bartz v. Anthropic and similar cases in 2025) have found that training large language models on copyrighted works is highly transformative and qualifies as fair use under copyright law, as long as outputs don't reproduce near-copies of originals. Courts called it "spectacularly" or "quintessentially" transformative—shifting purpose from consuming the work to learning patterns for new generation. This isn't "theft"; it's legally protected innovation in most analyzed cases (though piracy in acquisition can still be an issue).

Critically evaluate AI outputs yourself—don't treat "ChatGPT said" as authoritative. It's a tool, not a source; responsible use means cross-checking, especially for facts, code, or creative work.

Traffic drops to sites like Stack Overflow, forums, and wikis stem from efficiency: people now get quick answers via AI for common queries, bypassing searches. Stack Overflow's question volume and traffic have declined sharply since late 2022 (some reports cite 50-78% drops in usage/questions by 2025-2026), as developers turn to conversational AI. This mirrors Google's featured snippets and instant answers (pre-AI era), which pulled from Wikipedia and reduced clicks/traffic to sources—yet Wikipedia editors kept contributing, and infrastructure load eased. Viewers often still clicked through for depth. AI accelerates this trend but doesn't erase the value of human-curated knowledge for complex or novel problems.

AI's impact on visual/creative fields is overstated here. Text dominates LLM use; AI video/image generation sees far lower everyday adoption, and music is niche—most people (myself included) stick to human-curated platforms like YouTube Music or Spotify playlists. Stats show AI tools help producers (e.g., generating elements), but full AI songs remain a small fraction; human creation drives charts and culture. Blogs still thrive, people read and share personal posts, and social media amplifies independent voices more than ever—no gatekeepers like publishers required.

Human culture persists robustly. Social platforms buzz with original content, memes, art, discussions, and activism. AI handles rote language tasks but can't replicate human cognition, empathy, lived experience, or true innovation. Reasoning models mimic steps, yet falter on nuance, originality, or context without human grounding. For big problems, background knowledge and critical thinking remain essential—AI augments, not replaces.

This isn't "destroying creators" or completing a cynical circle; it's disruption, like search engines or calculators before it. Innovation often shifts workflows—some lose, others gain—but human creativity endures and adapts. Blaming AI wholesale ignores nuance and evidence. Be a critical consumer: use tools wisely, support creators directly, and recognize evolution isn't erasure.

Don Hawkins - W7DAH Jan 16

@elaine @nixCraft Are you speaking of the same “courts” who decided for us that corporations are people, too?

Would that be the same court that granted Mango Mussolini near total immunity?

Are you speaking of the American court system where laws are only ever enforced against the poor?

Seems rather weak foundations for your supposition.

Elaine Jackson-Pimentel 🦄🌈Jan 17

@[email protected] @nixCraft Courts interpret and apply laws passed by Congress. They don’t invent them. The fair use doctrine, codified in 17 U.S.C. § 107, has existed for decades. It isn’t some recent invention crafted to favor AI companies.

Separately, courts have ruled that Anthropic’s use of pirated copies did not qualify as fair use. This resulted in a major settlement. Many creators, authors, and legal scholars strongly disagree with how fair use has been interpreted in recent AI-related cases. Appeals or future litigation could still shift the balance.

That said, courts are simply doing their constitutional job: resolving disputes according to the laws already on the books. Dismissing judicial rulings just because the outcome feels unpopular or inconvenient undermines the rule of law itself.

In the end, while tech giants can afford armies of lawyers to navigate, litigate, or simply outlast these rulings, it’s everyday creators, small authors, independent artists, and regular people like you and me who will feel the real squeeze. Our livelihoods and our rights to control and benefit from our own work are quietly eroded in ways the mega-corporations with deep pockets and endless resources never will.

Don Hawkins - W7DAH Jan 17

@elaine
The court interprets precedent ALL the time. Not just decades old, but even much older.

Courts are often referred to by the name of the chief justice.

You avoided my questions about this court. But, the truly highest court, the court of public opinion, has passed judgement on the Roberts court. The verdict returned is that it is compromised.

Your statement about the court just doing their job is naive. The Roberts court is a partisan activists court. It is a bad joke.

Don Hawkins - W7DAH Jan 16

@elaine @nixCraft
Alphabet (Google), & Spotify are particularly powerful examples of evil.

Don Hawkins - W7DAH Jan 16

@elaine @nixCraft recommended listening

Don Hawkins - W7DAH Jan 16

@nixCraft Exactly. Toxic Capitalism can screw-up a train wreck.

🇨🇦 🇪🇺🇺🇦 🏳️‍🌈 🌍🔬🧬Jan 17

@nixCraft The really speed-ran the ol' enshittication process, didn't they? You'd almost think they were burning cash with no actual business model in sight, or something.

Julianoë Jan 17

@nixCraft @timotheegoguely my hope is that they are going too fast about it and they kill their own puppy here.. The bubble is huge. They need some proof of money making super fast before investors loose hope. But the public has not yet been sold to the dream entirely. It took services like Netflix almost 10years before conceding to the ever returning personal data AND ads. I feel like it shows a sign of desperation for profits or an overconfidence in the level of enshtification acceptance

@iveyline Jan 17

@nixCraft I simply don't use. I have my own personal intelligence!