Those "zero" include: Rumble, Odysee, Dailymotion, Twitch, Facebook watch... etc.

And a decent list here: https://ideaexplainers.com/video-sites-like-youtube/

Small scale usage at the same level as a normal person would probably go under the radar, but if you try scraping, running multiple accounts or posting any more than you would a normal user it’ll be picked up once they can link all actions to a real person.

If you are just asking Siri to load a page for you, that probably gets tolerated. Maybe very sensitive sites will go verified mobile platform only and Apple/Google will provide some kind of AI free compute environment like how they can block screen recording or custom roms today.

Yes it is 100% the death of the free and open computing environment. But captchas are no longer going to be sufficient. It seems realistic to block bots if you are willing to fully lock down everything.

> they're not going to re-scrape the content they already have

That's true for static content, but much of it is forums and other places like that where the main value is that new content is constantly generated - but needs to be re-scraped.

3. they already do, since YT just doesn't really pay and regularly flips out in weird ways

In terms of utility as training data, the Internet is a poisoned well now, and the poison is becoming more potent over time. Part of it is the SEO spam and content marketing slop, both of which kept growing and accumulating. Part of it is even more slop produced by LLMs, especially by cheap (= weak) models, but also by LLMs in general (any LLM used to produce content is doing worse job at it than a model from subsequent generation, so it's kinda always suboptimal for training purposes). And now part of it are people mass-producing bullshit out of spite, just to screw with AI companies. SNR on the web is dropping like a brick falling into a black hole.

It's a bit of a gamble at this point - will the larger models, or new architectures, or training protocols, be able to reject all that noise and extract the signal? If yes, then training on the Internet is still safe. If not, it's probably better for them to freeze the datasets blindly scrapped from the Internet now, and focus on mining less poisoned sources (like books, academic papers, and other publications not yet ravaged by the marketing communications cancer[0], also ideally published before the last 2 years).

I don't know which is more likely - but I'm not dismissing the possibility that the models will be able to process increasingly poisoned data sets just fine, if the data sets are large enough, because of a very basic and powerful idea: self-consistency. True information is always self-consistent, because it reflects the underlying reality. Falsehoods may be consistent in the small, but at scale they're not.

As I said, there aren't any collapses like that to be had. Heaven and Earth will be moved to make the smallest change necessary to keep things flowing as they were. Banks aren't allowed to fail. Companies, despite lengthy strings of missteps and billions burned on dead ends, still remain on top.

You can step away from the world (right now, no waiting required). But the world can remain irrational longer than you can wait for it to step away from you, and pushing for more irrationality won't make a dent in that.

Let's give it a shot.

The year is 2003. Svn and cvs are proving to be way too clunky and slow for booming open source development.

As an ethical accelerationist, you gain commit access to the repos for svn and cvs and make them slower and less reliable to accelerate progress toward better version control.

Lo and behold, you still have to wait until 2025 for git to be released. Because git wasn't written to replace svn or cvs-- it was written as the result of internal kernel politics wrt access to a closed-source source management program Bitkeeper. And since svn and cvs were already bad enough that kernel devs didn't choose them, you making them worse wouldn't have affected their choice.

Also, keep in mind that popularity of git was spurred by tools that converted from svn to git. So by making svn worse, you'd have made adoption of git harder by making it harder on open source devs to write reliable conversion tools.

To me, this philosophy looks worse than simply doing nothing at all. And this is in a specific domain where you could at least make a plausible, constrained argument for accelerationism. Your comment instead seems to apply to accelerationism applied to software in general-- there, the odds of you being right are so infinitesimal as to be fatuous.

In short, you'd do better playing the lottery because at least nothing bad happens to anyone else when you lose.

> During the "things get worse" phase, why not make it shorter?

Because it never gets better for the people actually living through it.

I imagine those in favor of the idea of accelerating collapse aren't all so purely selfless that they're willing to see themselves and their children suffer and die, all so someone elses' descendants can live in a better world.

Nah, they just aren't thinking it through.

There's no cycle. It's just a long slide with illusionary changes in between.

It doesn't foreshorten the cycle, it prolongs it and makes it worse.