In business there's 52 (4*13) weeks in a year and as a result, 2080 regular working hours in a year (40*52). I think these are just generally agreed upon ways to define time for simplicity. In some (most?) systems your 'hourly wage' is simply your salary divided by 2080, trying to divide your salary by other metrics to determine hourly wage tend to wonk the numbers a bit.
Considering how long OKCupid has been around, there's a good chance a significant majority of internet-using millennials have had an account at some point in their lives.
Why can't you just like an app, why do you have to turn it into a personal statement about your dislike of AI? If AI was not involved, why bring it up?
I didn't even post a link to my blog, I posted a link to my public traffic stats, and only in response to something you said. Way to prove my point, buddy.
Why are you putting words/desires in my mouth that I did not voice? No one said anything about moving the needle. I said that my blog will go into Google results and help people, you said that sounded optimistic, so then I provided you proof that my blog already shows in google results and receives traffic. I've received messages from real people who have been helped by my writing on my blog, so it's not just bots.
I do not know what "move the needle" means or why you think I am trying to do that. Your excessive negativity and pessimism is unwarranted and I dislike it. Honestly between you and that other guy replying to my comments with seemingly thinly veiled vitriol for my perspective, it's just further proof of my point that being able to communicate with large groups of anonymous people is typically a net negative. Most anonymous people seem to be quite nasty. I'd rather write on my blog where no one like you will see it, and if you do see it, you likely won't go out of your way to send me an email with your negative comments because it's likely you do this for public attention.
Every single one of your comments in this thread is some slippery slope stuff where you think corporations and federal government are going to work together to kill off the (public?) internet. It's okay that you feel that way, even if it's just a big ol' fallacy, but you don't need to repeat it in six different places. You made your point, you think the internet is doomed no matter what happens, great, let's move on.
Who cares if anyone knows my blog exists? I'm not writing my blog to farm engagement as I do not run ads on my blog. I write on my blog because I want to write my thoughts down and project them into the world. Whether or not anyone sees them is pretty unimportant.
If my writing helps someone via them hitting my blog directly or them getting the answer via AI aggregation, mission accomplished.
It's funny you mention this, I got a Commodore 64 Ultimate the other day and one of the first things I did was load up the BBS client and browse some BBSes. Those are from before my time (my first PC was a Compaq Pentium 166) so I never got to experience them for real. But if the rest of the internet collapses under the weight of bot traffic, BBSes are quite nice.
I spend all day every day on the Internet and I don't share your perspective. I might dislike centralized social media and yearn for a bygone era, but just in the past two days I had a very positive interaction with multiple real humans in the Commodore 64 subreddit that helped solve a problem I was having that isn't documented anywhere else on the internet yet. So then I went on my personal blog and blogged about it, which will get it out there on Google and help others. In this way, I am helping to keep the internet alive, I guess. "Be the change you want to see in the world," and all that.
In an ideal/fantasy world under "small internet theory", every online friend group would have their own Discourse server set up (similar to how friend groups use Discord now), and traffic/usage of that Discourse server is so small that it would be a waste of resources to try to swamp it with bot traffic, and on top of that, everyone on the Discourse server are friends who can vouch for new members who join, so no bot could join the Discourse server because no one would know who they are.
I understand that some may feel we are losing something, by not being able to go onto a website and anonymously talk to 1000s of other anonymous people we do not know, but I do not think that has actually been a net positive and this bot issue demonstrates the issue quite well: if you do not know who you are talking to, you do not know if they are telling the truth, or if they are someone you should even listen to at all, and now they might not even be human. So why do it? I would rather talk to my friends, people I've met in meatspace or over voice chat in a game, people who I can vouch for and that I know I can respect and trust.
Let's build small communities of real friends who recognize each other and spend time with them on the internet, in that way the internet will never die.
So why isn't it called "dead social media theory"? The internet is not only social media services, though I understand a lot of people seem to think that without centralized social media services there is no reason to use the internet.
Why is it being called dead internet theory when, as far as I can tell, what's really happening is that big centralized systems are being overrun with bots? The internet existed and was pretty great before these large centralized systems came into being.
Anyone can still run a blog/website, and/or their own discourse server. There's no need to mourn for these centralized systems that largely existed only to exploit us in some way. Let's celebrate "small internet theory", an internet where exploitation is effectively impossible because every company that tries it is overrun with AI bots. That sounds awesome to me personally, but I was also up late last night watching clips of Conan O'Brien from 1999 and the nostalgia for that era / what the internet was like back then hit me so hard it was almost painful.
I use Claude Code a lot, and it always lets me know the moment I stopped thinking hard, because it will build something completely asinine. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say...
I'm with you. If I am at a bar and I see a sign that says "PBR - $3", I don't think of that as an advertisement. This user opted into Meta AI and (perhaps 'unknowingly' as no one reads the terms) gave their consent for this to happen, so I think 'hysteria' is appropriate and it's clear to me that here in the comments, opinions about this are based on feelings and not facts, and for that reason, it has to be described in misleading ways.
I, too, have "used Meta AI", and have not had this happen to me. But I did not use Meta AI to generate pictures of me, so I did not check the box that led to this. That is one of the number of ways the way this post is titled in a way that is misleading. Simply "using Meta AI" in any capacity did not lead to this outcome.
Additionally, the title suggests that the user gave his photos to Meta AI, and then a separate service, Instagram, is using his photos. That's not what is happening, he gave his photos to Meta AI (likely inside Instagram) and then Meta AI is using them (inside Instagram). There's no need to pretend two different services are sharing their photos around, but the post title is more engaging if there's the suggestion otherwise.
There's _a lot_ of poor quality engineers out there who understand that on some level they are committing fraud by spinning their wheels all day shifting CSS values around on a React component while collecting large paychecks. I think it's only natural all of those engineers are terrified by the prospect of some computer being capable of doing their job quickly and efficiently and replacing them. Those people are crying so loudly that it's encouraging otherwise normal people to start jumping on the anti-AI bandwagon too, because their voices are so loud people can't hear themselves think critically anymore.
I think passionate and inspired engineers who love their job and have very solid soft skills and experience working deeply on complex software projects will always have a position in the industry, and people like that are understandably very enthusiastic about AI instead of being scared of it.
In other words, it is weird how bad the status quo was, until we got something that really threatened the status quo, now a lot of the people who wanted to tear it all down are now desperately trying to stop everything from changing. The sentiment on the internet has gone in a weird direction, but it's all about money deep down. This hypothetical new status quo brought on by AI seems to be wedded to fears of less money, thus abject terror masquerading as "I'm so bored!" posturing.
You see this in the art circles, where established artists are willing to embrace AI, but it's the small time aspiring bedroom artists that have not achieved any success who are all over Twitter denouncing AI art as soulless and terrible. While the real artists are too busy using any tool available to make art, or are just making art because they want to make art and aren't concerned with fear-mongering.