I mean it kind of already does this accidentally, just look for em dash and/or emojis sprinkled all over the document and you can be pretty certain that it was AI generated.
The other thing I'm seeing here is that this will only be effective for large chunks of text, if you're dealing with small snippets interspersed with human generated content there will be enough statistical noise to make classification hard without introducing a bunch of false positives and negatives.
It would make a good second (or third) layer of defense. The problem with it is that it's reactive not proactive, so you need to download the ad first before it can decide to block it or not. URL blacklists are the superior option, but hard to maintain. The ideal setup would be a URL blacklist that's automatically updated on the fly by an AI classifier so anything that slips through the blacklist gets ban hammered by the AI and added to the blacklist to prevent future wasted bandwidth. If the blacklist updates were shared the same way some of the ad blockers do currently it could be incredibly effective as it would be essentially distributed realtime ad blocking.
Eh, maybe. First for existing content it makes no difference, the creator already got paid to read the ad so whether you skip it or not doesn't change the money that's already in their account. The argument would be if people are regularly skipping the sponsored ads then companies might stop offering sponsorships. Considering this is currently limited to premium customers which a) tend to be the minority, b) still need to manually trigger a fast forward to skip the ad, and c) would likely fast forward through it anyway because they've already shown they're willing to pay money to avoid ads, I don't think this will actually make much difference. Worst case scenario it drives down the amount being offered for sponsorships a little.
The content creator won't care but the sponsors might. YouTube has a similar system that skips over "commonly skipped segments" when you're fast forwarding. In practice it just means you skip past the section of the video where whoever it is reads the sponsors ad copy. It would have gotten skipped anyway, this feature just saves you a few seconds of putzing around trying to find the exact spot where the ad ends.
It doesn't have a long tail, that's the wheel. If you look the same line shows up at the front of the hamster as well.
So the company made their game marginally less shit which caused their revenue to dip very slightly and the stock markets reaction was "SELL!!!!!1!!!ONE!!!!!! THEY'RE GOING UNDER!!!". This is why we can't have nice things.
It's to feed the algorithms and get more views. They get paid based on the number of views a video gets. The higher the algorithm promotes a video, the more views they get. Getting lots of comments on a video causes the algorithm to promote it more. It costs the spammers almost nothing to shit out a quick thirst trap video but they need to get enough views to recoup that cost which means there is a minimum number of views they need to break even. It's not a huge number as far as these platforms go, but it's also not nothing so anything they can do to encourage more views is mandatory for them.
Setting aside the fact this was definitely not unprompted, social engineering might be the one thing AI is actually better at than a human. That is after all one of the biggest uses for bots for a while now by way of spam bots trying to social engineer people into various activities.
Unfortunately there are very few actual CGM brands available. There are a bunch of different CGMs, but most of them are just relabels of other units, almost all of which are made by either Dexcom or Abbott. Even more unfortunately in my experience they wildly exaggerate the accuracy and lifetime of the units. Most claim an accuracy of +/- 20% which is pathetic for 14 days, but you're lucky if it maintains even that terrible level of accuracy for half that time.
In my case I'm horrendously allergic to the adhesive that Dexcom uses on their units, so I can't even use half the CGMs on the market, and I gave up on Abbott after their units started to struggle to even make it 48 hours without being off by more than 50 mg/dl.
No, you have failed to understand how either license works. Companies are forced to contribute back in the case of the GPL and the project can choose to accept that or not. In the case of the BSD license companies can choose whether to contribute back and if they do, then the project has the option to accept it or not. The GPL makes it always the choice of the project, while the BSD makes it always the choice of the company.
Basically his argument is that because some companies choose to contribute back to BSD projects even though they aren't required to, and because some GPL projects choose not to merge some changes from downstream forks, the GPL and BSD licenses are effectively the same. I think the flaw in this logic should be pretty apparent. I think the GPLv2 vs. GPLv3 debate is a lot more interesting, particularly since Linus has come out against GPLv3.
It's the exact same problem you run into on any open or semi-open market but the outcome for anything with a good user review system will be the same. Look at Steam where asset flips and low quality clones flooded the store but 99% of them barely get a handful of sales if any. Instead all the money goes towards the games with actual fun content. People recognize low quality and low effort slop and AI reeks of it.
The only thing flooding markets with slop does is it makes it harder for the small gems to get discovered. Some of them still will, they happen to catch the eye of just the right person and spread through word of mouth, and the big companies will just shovel heaps of money into advertising, but it makes life miserable for the little guy trying to make a name for themselves.