araes 8 hours ago | prev | next |

I don't really like Zuck all that much, he's made all kinds of horrifying comments over the years, yet this article confuses me. Also, this article itself seems like LLM content being produced in the high level fight among 1000 millionaires.

Bloomberg writes like its better to keep all the AI content in walled gardens that only the wealthy or elite can access in a downhill dump on the unaware.

How is it better to sell access than to just make it available to everybody?

jdsully 7 hours ago | root | parent |

Its better for whoever paid for this advertorial to be published. I think people would be shocked how cheap it is to get articles placed these days.

tomcam 7 hours ago | root | parent |

OK, I’ll bite. Roughly how cheap do you think it was to get an article like that one placed? I am mildly horrified yet now unable to stop thinking about what you said.

jdsully 7 hours ago | root | parent |

low single digit thousands.

Graham has a great but very dated article on it: https://paulgraham.com/submarine.html

Its only gotten worse as news orgs' finances have declined. At least this one is in the opinion section.

araes 5 hours ago | root | parent | next |

Thank you for posting an actual reference.

Google's summary puts it at: $100-300 in the modern era. Global distro is maybe 10x. https://www.google.com/search?q=cost+of+placing+a+news+story

Google's summary is pulling from [1][2][3][4]

[1] https://prowly.com/magazine/press-release-cost/

[2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-much-does-press-release-c...

[3] https://www.ereleases.com/pr-fuel/how-much-does-a-typical-pr...

[4] https://www.thenewswire.com/aboutprices#:~:text=One%20office....

tomcam 3 hours ago | root | parent |

My perusal of those references indicates placement on press release distribution sites like PR Newswire and ereleases, which lack the credibility of a site like Bloomberg... or am I missing something?

I experimented with press release sites a couple years ago and was not impressed.

tomcam 6 hours ago | root | parent | prev |

That article is nearing 20 years old. The legacy media landscape has been on life support for years. I am guessing that number has fallen dramatically. Hmmm…

josefritzishere 7 hours ago | prev | next |

I find no value in video fakes of people playing tennis with polar bear cubs. Is there any forseeable tipping point with where fb fundamentally ceases to be relevant to its users? Zuckerberg is chasing the AI dragon as if disposable content and meaninglessness has some kind of dadaist appeal.

Can he make money selling real ads with fake content to fake users? Is that the future?

headcanon 7 hours ago | prev | next |

Horrible take, typical FUD against open source. Of all the things to criticize Meta/Facebook/Zuck for, open-sourcing LLMs should be at the bottom of the list. All of the examples cited (halloween prank, general AI slop) could have been done with any set of open or closed source tools, and are ultimately inevitable problems to solve. Walled gardens just make the problem worse.

Meanwhile, I'll be using local versions of Ollama and Qwen to experiment with my own agentic workflows and help me organize my life better.

quantified 7 hours ago | root | parent |

> “And I think we’re going to add a whole new category of content, which is AI generated or AI summarized content or kind of existing content pulled together by AI in some way. And I think that that’s going to be just very exciting for the -- for Facebook and Instagram and maybe Threads or other kind of Feed experiences over time.”

That is a quote from Zuckerberg about the intended application. Nothing about open source in there. The intent is to have "creators" push their AI slop into your feed. If you are such a creator, well, sorry I don't want your slop in my feed.

gnu8 7 hours ago | prev |

No one has a right to be wealthy. Mark Zuckerberg and all of these other people are so narcissistic that not only do they believe they are entitled to their wealth, but they also have an insane urge to take even more from people while providing even less. The quality of information and interaction on Meta’s web sites is lower than ever, and their response is to machine-produce an increasing quantity of even lower quality sludge rather than shut down the company and disappear.

What we need is a mechanism to terminate these entities, in the same way that chemotherapy eliminates fast-dividing cancer cells that have lost their ability to self-terminate.

tomcam 7 hours ago | root | parent | next |

I am sorry your response got downlvoted. I would like to understand why you believe no one has a right to be wealthy.

Also, I would like to understand what your metrics are. If you have the ability to post on this site, I will assume your income is at least an order of magnitude, possibly two, higher than someone in Chad or South Sudan. Should you lower your living standards to match them and if so, what would you do with the remainder of your income? What material effect would it have on anyone for you to do this?

These are serious questions and I’m not trying to make fun of you. I’m trying to understand you’re thinking. And to be clear about my bias, I want everyone to be wealthy.

seanw444 7 hours ago | root | parent | prev |

> No one has a right to be wealthy.

They do have a right to the wealth they earned through their own ideas and efforts. I'm guessing you're a tankie though, so you likely disagree.