#Technical analysis software

[rishikagurjar10]

From Dream to Digital — Your Business, Online for ₹4999

Every business starts with a dream. Now, we turn yours into a professional digital presence that attracts customers, boosts trust, and drives growth — all in one affordable package.

Here’s what Kiaan Technology gives you for just ₹4999:

🌐 Custom-designed Website (AI-powered & mobile-friendly)

📲 Branded Android/iOS Mobile App

🆓 Domain, logo, banners, bio kit, GMB listing — everything DONE FOR YOU

🎁 Plus, 15 value-packed FREE bonuses — from SEO tools to ready-to-use ad strategies, eBooks, expert consultations & more

🔥 The best part? You get a complete business launch system — not just a website.

👉 Whether you’re a coach, shop owner, content creator, or entrepreneur — this offer is your shortcut to a pro online brand.

🚀 Get started today: www.kiaantechnology.com

[freeseotoolsau]

Trusted Backlink checker | Free SEO Tools

FreeSEOTools.com.au provides completely free, professional-grade SEO tools to help businesses improve their Google rankings. We offer keyword research, backlink analysis, technical SEO audits, and more - all without requiring signup. Trusted by marketers and businesses globally, our platform delivers fast and reliable SEO insights that support smarter digital strategies. Proudly based in Australia, we serve a global audience.

[ottoshelpfulhacks]

Why Every Crypto Trader Needs TradingView (Even If You’re Just Starting)

When I first got into crypto, I was overwhelmed. Between exchanges, wallets, coins, and candlesticks—I had no idea where to start. But the first tool that actually helped me feel in control was TradingView. I’ve used it for years now, and honestly? I don’t make a move without checking my charts there first. Whether you’re new to crypto or leveling up your trading game, this is one platform that…

[signode-blog]

Mastering the Art of Trading with Open Interest: A Comprehensive Guide

In the dynamic world of trading, understanding the intricate details and metrics can make the difference between success and failure. One such critical metric is Open Interest (OI). While many traders focus on price action and volume, integrating Open Interest into your trading strategy can provide invaluable insights. This comprehensive guide will delve into the concept of Open Interest, how to…

[anki1994]

Technical Illustration Software Market Opportunities and Forecast to 2027

The Insight Partners recently announced the release of the market research titled Technical Illustration Software Market Outlook to 2027 | Share, Size, and Growth. The report is a stop solution for companies operating in the Technical Illustration Software market. The report involves details on key segments, market players, precise market revenue statistics, and a roadmap that assists companies in advancing their offerings and preparing for the upcoming decade. Listing out the opportunities in the market, this report intends to prepare businesses for the market dynamics in an estimated period.

Is Investing in the Market Research Worth It?

Some businesses are just lucky to manage their performance without opting for market research, but these incidences are rare. Having information on longer sample sizes helps companies to eliminate bias and assumptions. As a result, entrepreneurs can make better decisions from the outset. Technical Illustration Software Market report allows business to reduce their risks by offering a closer picture of consumer behavior, competition landscape, leading tactics, and risk management.

A trusted market researcher can guide you to not only avoid pitfalls but also help you devise production, marketing, and distribution tactics. With the right research methodologies, The Insight Partners is helping brands unlock revenue opportunities in the Technical Illustration Software market.

If your business falls under any of these categories – Manufacturer, Supplier, Retailer, or Distributor, this syndicated Technical Illustration Software market research has all that you need.

What are Key Offerings Under this Technical Illustration Software Market Research?

Global Technical Illustration Software market summary, current and future Technical Illustration Software market size

Market Competition in Terms of Key Market Players, their Revenue, and their Share

Economic Impact on the Industry

Production, Revenue (value), Price Trend

Cost Investigation and Consumer Insights

Industrial Chain, Raw Material Sourcing Strategy, and Downstream Buyers

Production, Revenue (Value) by Geographical Segmentation

Marketing Strategy Comprehension, Distributors and Traders

Global Technical Illustration Software Market Forecast

Study on Market Research Factors

Who are the Major Market Players in the Technical Illustration Software Market?

Technical Illustration Software market is all set to accommodate more companies and is foreseen to intensify market competition in coming years. Companies focus on consistent new launches and regional expansion can be outlined as dominant tactics. Technical Illustration Software market giants have widespread reach which has favored them with a wide consumer base and subsequently increased their Technical Illustration Software market share.

Report Attributes

Details

Segmental Coverage

Component

Solutions and Services

Technology

2D and 3D

Organization Size

SMEs and Large Enterprises

End User

Manufacturing

Aerospace & Defense

Automotive

Healthcare

Energy & Power

and Others

and Geography

North America

Europe

Asia Pacific

and South and Central America

Regional and Country Coverage

North America (US, Canada, Mexico)

Europe (UK, Germany, France, Russia, Italy, Rest of Europe)

Asia Pacific (China, India, Japan, Australia, Rest of APAC)

South / South & Central America (Brazil, Argentina, Rest of South/South & Central America)

Middle East & Africa (South Africa, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Rest of MEA)

Market Leaders and Key Company Profiles

ASA Computers, Inc.

Autodesk, Inc.

Canvas GFX, Inc.

Corel Corporation

Cyient Ltd.

Dassault Syst?mes

Ignite Technologies, Inc.

PTC Inc.

QuadriSpace Corporation

The Technical Drawing Company

Other key companies 

What are Perks for Buyers?

The research will guide you in decisions and technology trends to adopt in the projected period.

Take effective Technical Illustration Software market growth decisions and stay ahead of competitors

Improve product/services and marketing strategies.

Unlock suitable market entry tactics and ways to sustain in the market

Knowing market players can help you in planning future mergers and acquisitions

Visual representation of data by our team makes it easier to interpret and present the data further to investors, and your other stakeholders.

Do We Offer Customized Insights? Yes, We Do!

The The Insight Partners offer customized insights based on the client’s requirements. The following are some customizations our clients frequently ask for:

The Technical Illustration Software market report can be customized based on specific regions/countries as per the intention of the business

The report production was facilitated as per the need and following the expected time frame

Insights and chapters tailored as per your requirements.

Depending on the preferences we may also accommodate changes in the current scope.

Author’s Bio: Aniruddha Dev Senior Market Research Expert at The Insight Partners

[wealthunter01]

The benefits and drawbacks of being a solo vs part of a team in the industry

DOES TEAMWORK PAY? In the professional world, there are two primary work styles: working solo or being a part of a team. Each work style has its own benefits and drawbacks depending on the industry, personality, and preferences of the worker. Some people thrive in a solitary environment where they can work independently, while others prefer to be surrounded by colleagues and actively collaborate…

[technicalarshadtech]

What is a Tech Platform?

Tech platforms are digital ecosystems that provide the infrastructure for various applications and services to run. These platforms can be hardware or software-based and act as intermediaries connecting users, developers, and data. They offer a foundation on which innovative applications and solutions can be built, transforming industries, and enhancing user experiences.

More

[investor2023]

Maximizing Profits: The Power of Trading Terminals and Stock Technical Analysis Software

In the ever-evolving landscape of financial markets, staying ahead of the curve requires a strategic combination of cutting-edge tools and informed decision-making. Two key elements that have revolutionized the way traders approach the market are trading terminals and stock technical analysis software. These indispensable resources empower traders with real-time data, in-depth insights, and efficient execution capabilities, paving the way for more informed and profitable trading strategies.

Trading Terminals: The Nerve Center of Modern Trading

Trading terminals have evolved from simple order execution platforms to comprehensive hubs that provide traders with a holistic view of the financial markets. These platforms amalgamate real-time price data, news, charts, and trading functionalities, enabling traders to make split-second decisions without toggling between multiple applications.

One of the core advantages of trading terminals is their ability to offer direct market access (DMA). This means that traders can place orders directly into the market, bypassing intermediaries and potentially benefiting from faster execution times. Furthermore, DMA often comes with advanced order types, such as stop-loss and take-profit orders, providing traders with greater control over their positions and risk management.

Another essential feature of modern trading terminals is their integration with various asset classes and markets. Whether it's stocks, forex, commodities, or cryptocurrencies, traders can access a diverse range of instruments from a single interface. This comprehensive approach simplifies the trading process and opens up opportunities for cross-market strategies.

Stock Technical Analysis Software: Decoding Market Patterns

Technical analysis has been a cornerstone of trading strategies for decades, and with the advent of sophisticated stock technical analysis software, its effectiveness has soared to new heights. These software solutions offer a multitude of tools designed to analyze historical price movements and identify potential trends, patterns, and reversal points.

Charting is a fundamental component of technical analysis software. Traders can choose from a variety of chart types, such as candlestick, line, and bar charts, and overlay indicators and oscillators to help spot potential market movements. The ability to customize these charts according to individual preferences is a powerful feature that aids traders in making sense of complex price data.

Pattern recognition is another key strength of technical analysis software. By identifying chart patterns like head and shoulders, double tops, and flags, traders can anticipate potential price movements and plan their trades accordingly. Coupled with robust risk management strategies, these patterns can provide a statistical edge to traders.

Synergizing Trading Terminals and Technical Analysis Software

The true power of these tools emerges when trading terminals and stock technical analysis software are combined. By integrating these resources, traders can seamlessly transition from analyzing market trends to executing trades with just a few clicks. Real-time data feeds from trading terminals enrich technical analysis software, ensuring that decisions are based on the latest information.

Moreover, this synergy helps traders spot opportunities and act swiftly. For instance, if technical analysis software identifies a bullish reversal pattern forming on a stock's chart, traders can instantaneously execute a buy order through the trading terminal. This integration minimizes the time lag between analysis and execution, a crucial factor in volatile markets.

The Future of Informed Trading

As technology continues to advance, trading terminals and stock technical analysis software will likely become even more sophisticated. Artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms could enhance these tools by offering predictive insights and refining trading strategies based on historical data. Furthermore, the integration of social sentiment analysis could provide an additional layer of information to aid decision-making.

In conclusion, the marriage of trading terminals and stock technical analysis software has revolutionized the trading landscape. These tools empower traders with real-time data, comprehensive analysis, and efficient execution capabilities, enabling them to make informed decisions and maximize profits in today's fast-paced markets. As technology advances, so too will the potential for traders to extract valuable insights and execute optimal strategies.

[delosconsulting]

Best IETM & S1000D Software Development Company in Bangalore DELOS has explicit expertise in preparation of Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (IETMs) for Indian Air Force.

[rishikagurjar10]

From Local Shop to Digital Brand – Start with ₹4999

Whether you sell products, services, or knowledge — your audience is online. Are you?

Here’s what ₹4999 gets you:

A world-class Website & App

SEO Boost + Social Listings

Logo, Domain & Business Identity

15 Bonus Tools & Resources for marketing, visibility & growth

📦 Designed for real businesses that want real results. 🎯 Easy, affordable, and fast — everything done-for-you.

👨‍💻 Start your journey with Kiaan: www.kiaantechnology.com

[freeseotoolsau]

Top-Notch Website analysis tools | Free SEO Tools

FreeSEOTools.com.au provides completely free, professional-grade SEO tools to help businesses improve their Google rankings. We offer keyword research, backlink analysis, technical SEO audits, and more - all without requiring signup. Trusted by marketers and businesses globally, our platform delivers fast and reliable SEO insights that support smarter digital strategies. Proudly based in Australia, we serve a global audience.

[do-you-have-a-flag]

i'm just gonna call it that we need to practice mindful tech usage and security and i don't mean screentime tracking apps and vpns or whatever i mean starting from early childhood and going into adult wellbeing culture to encourage tactile hobbies and long-form work and the understanding of online devices as commodifying the user with spyware

i'm talking throwback word processors with the same ergonomics as regular smart devices for general educational work and dedicated subjects for working with digital technologies so you have theory in practice and then applying that theory in a contemporary work context. that's where you learn applications, digital safety, and how to implement the generative tools. separately. once you've already developed the critical analysis and expressive skills first.

i have been basically addicted to the internet since i was 13, i've had ups and downs with it, but i've always had a little bit of over caution when it comes to information and identity online. i overshare what i chose to but i think the break down of privacy as a norm when it comes to personal data tracking is genuinely awful.

i like algorithms in some places but i do not think this super-customisation is worth this panopticon of tech.

have you heard about how phone locations can still be triangulated when the phone is off? this is incidentally why if you are gong to protests and you think you are in danger it might be best to leave it at home. but generally if you want to avoid audio and video being used to build a marketing profile you can just switch it off and pop it in a bag or the next room. but with fb trying to make voice command smart glasses a thing (after snapchat and google both failed to sustain the same product) it bears caution that so called wearable tech such as glasses, pendants, watches, earbuds, ect.... even outside of smart cars there's the risk of passive listening for user marketing profiles. we already have location based advertising, ads that track your useage to predict your menstrual cycle or life events, public ads that react to nearby phones

i am going off on this tangent to say that i am not naïve to the fact that we already have to constantly dig into 'dark patterns' of settings to opt out of surveillance and commodification. i'm aware that the easiest path is to do nothing and use the shortcut machines even when they don't actually help or save much time or effort beyond selling you tools that already exist with a new price tag. i'm aware that the plagiarism software with no idea what it's talking about and runs on resource wasting pollution and underpaid remote human labour that also gets slapped in every function role despite basically being fancy autofil and pixel pulp not only has all of those issues but the lay person is either unaware or does not care and companies only care that it is a new way to pretend they're innovating. i know all this just like i know that mass automation is just exploitation unless it is balanced with social structures for all that mean emancipation from the need for labour.

but while i think all tech can be used for good, facilitating human connection across physical distance, carefully trained data analysis on a rapid large scale, removing the tedium of technical drudgery where needed, just providing light entertainment. but we have gotta be better about legislating, moderating, and use culture.

use culture goes hand in hand with convenience. it's why vinyl records are still trendy, not only are they good at what they do, but there is enough cool factor that the inconvenience becomes a feature. CDs are also convenient still! but CDs do not have the cool factor so they get wiped out by the convenience of streaming. playlists in streaming have a cool factor that radio does not despite radio still being convenient. and remember no matter how much streaming claims you can pay to opt out of ads that's usually something that you get payment tiered out of eventually so the convenience facilitated by accessibility is debatable the longer time passes.

looping back to my original point, if we can encourage an understanding of digital privacy as something you shouldn't be complacent about, that you shouldn't have to pay for tools to get out of the spotlight, that it is immensely embarrassing to be too into exploitation by tech companies and make that the problem of everyone around you. user control should be synonymous with convenience. customisability/personalisation through individual control rather than passive scraping. you can still commodify decorative tech.

we gotta make slop and babying algorithm brained tech usage cringe. people don't care to hear that it's immoral so just make them feel uncool at this point. because it is embarrassing that you have the universe of resources at your fingertips and you're too scared to do anything with it other than beg it to put words in your mouth. who cares if you're chronically online or too busy irl to learn a new skill. you are like a little bird pecking at it's own reflection, that's sad. try saying something mediocre and honest. we gotta stop tap dancing into technofeudalism just because we're too complacent to actually talk to each-other.

[adverbian]

PSA for anyone with an Android phone. Delete your Meta apps (Facebook, Facebook Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp, Threads). They are spying on you. Much worse than you thought they were. (June 7, 2025)

Gift link to a Washington Post article: https://wapo.st/45hNMeB

Quote from the article:

…apps from Meta and Yandex, a technology company that originated in Russia, circumvented privacy protections in Android devices in ways that allowed their apps to secretly track people as they browsed the web.


That should not have happened. Apps on your phone are walled off from accessing your activity on other apps, including web browser apps like Chrome. Meta and Yandex found work-arounds.


The techniques essentially were akin to malware, or malicious software that is surreptitiously planted on your phone or computer, Dolanjski said.


Google said the behaviors of Meta and Yandex “blatantly violate our security and privacy principles.”

Technical analysis from Ars Technica: https://arstechnica.com/security/2025/06/meta-and-yandex-are-de-anonymizing-android-users-web-browsing-identifiers/

Note: the WaPo article says that so far, there’s no evidence this is happening on iPhones, but that it would be theoretically possible. So you should probably delete your Meta apps on iPhone, too.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

AI “art” and uncanniness

TOMORROW (May 14), I'm on a livecast about AI AND ENSHITTIFICATION with TIM O'REILLY; on TOMORROW (May 15), I'm in NORTH HOLLYWOOD for a screening of STEPHANIE KELTON'S FINDING THE MONEY; FRIDAY (May 17), I'm at the INTERNET ARCHIVE in SAN FRANCISCO to keynote the 10th anniversary of the AUTHORS ALLIANCE.

When it comes to AI art (or "art"), it's hard to find a nuanced position that respects creative workers' labor rights, free expression, copyright law's vital exceptions and limitations, and aesthetics.

I am, on balance, opposed to AI art, but there are some important caveats to that position. For starters, I think it's unequivocally wrong – as a matter of law – to say that scraping works and training a model with them infringes copyright. This isn't a moral position (I'll get to that in a second), but rather a technical one.

Break down the steps of training a model and it quickly becomes apparent why it's technically wrong to call this a copyright infringement. First, the act of making transient copies of works – even billions of works – is unequivocally fair use. Unless you think search engines and the Internet Archive shouldn't exist, then you should support scraping at scale:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/17/how-to-think-about-scraping/

And unless you think that Facebook should be allowed to use the law to block projects like Ad Observer, which gathers samples of paid political disinformation, then you should support scraping at scale, even when the site being scraped objects (at least sometimes):

https://pluralistic.net/2021/08/06/get-you-coming-and-going/#potemkin-research-program

After making transient copies of lots of works, the next step in AI training is to subject them to mathematical analysis. Again, this isn't a copyright violation.

Making quantitative observations about works is a longstanding, respected and important tool for criticism, analysis, archiving and new acts of creation. Measuring the steady contraction of the vocabulary in successive Agatha Christie novels turns out to offer a fascinating window into her dementia:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/apr/03/agatha-christie-alzheimers-research

Programmatic analysis of scraped online speech is also critical to the burgeoning formal analyses of the language spoken by minorities, producing a vibrant account of the rigorous grammar of dialects that have long been dismissed as "slang":

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373950278_Lexicogrammatical_Analysis_on_African-American_Vernacular_English_Spoken_by_African-Amecian_You-Tubers

Since 1988, UCL Survey of English Language has maintained its "International Corpus of English," and scholars have plumbed its depth to draw important conclusions about the wide variety of Englishes spoken around the world, especially in postcolonial English-speaking countries:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/projects/ice.htm

The final step in training a model is publishing the conclusions of the quantitative analysis of the temporarily copied documents as software code. Code itself is a form of expressive speech – and that expressivity is key to the fight for privacy, because the fact that code is speech limits how governments can censor software:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech/

Are models infringing? Well, they certainly can be. In some cases, it's clear that models "memorized" some of the data in their training set, making the fair use, transient copy into an infringing, permanent one. That's generally considered to be the result of a programming error, and it could certainly be prevented (say, by comparing the model to the training data and removing any memorizations that appear).

Not every seeming act of memorization is a memorization, though. While specific models vary widely, the amount of data from each training item retained by the model is very small. For example, Midjourney retains about one byte of information from each image in its training data. If we're talking about a typical low-resolution web image of say, 300kb, that would be one three-hundred-thousandth (0.0000033%) of the original image.

Typically in copyright discussions, when one work contains 0.0000033% of another work, we don't even raise the question of fair use. Rather, we dismiss the use as de minimis (short for de minimis non curat lex or "The law does not concern itself with trifles"):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

Busting someone who takes 0.0000033% of your work for copyright infringement is like swearing out a trespassing complaint against someone because the edge of their shoe touched one blade of grass on your lawn.

But some works or elements of work appear many times online. For example, the Getty Images watermark appears on millions of similar images of people standing on red carpets and runways, so a model that takes even in infinitesimal sample of each one of those works might still end up being able to produce a whole, recognizable Getty Images watermark.

The same is true for wire-service articles or other widely syndicated texts: there might be dozens or even hundreds of copies of these works in training data, resulting in the memorization of long passages from them.

This might be infringing (we're getting into some gnarly, unprecedented territory here), but again, even if it is, it wouldn't be a big hardship for model makers to post-process their models by comparing them to the training set, deleting any inadvertent memorizations. Even if the resulting model had zero memorizations, this would do nothing to alleviate the (legitimate) concerns of creative workers about the creation and use of these models.

So here's the first nuance in the AI art debate: as a technical matter, training a model isn't a copyright infringement. Creative workers who hope that they can use copyright law to prevent AI from changing the creative labor market are likely to be very disappointed in court:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/sarah-silverman-lawsuit-ai-meta-1235669403/

But copyright law isn't a fixed, eternal entity. We write new copyright laws all the time. If current copyright law doesn't prevent the creation of models, what about a future copyright law?

Well, sure, that's a possibility. The first thing to consider is the possible collateral damage of such a law. The legal space for scraping enables a wide range of scholarly, archival, organizational and critical purposes. We'd have to be very careful not to inadvertently ban, say, the scraping of a politician's campaign website, lest we enable liars to run for office and renege on their promises, while they insist that they never made those promises in the first place. We wouldn't want to abolish search engines, or stop creators from scraping their own work off sites that are going away or changing their terms of service.

Now, onto quantitative analysis: counting words and measuring pixels are not activities that you should need permission to perform, with or without a computer, even if the person whose words or pixels you're counting doesn't want you to. You should be able to look as hard as you want at the pixels in Kate Middleton's family photos, or track the rise and fall of the Oxford comma, and you shouldn't need anyone's permission to do so.

Finally, there's publishing the model. There are plenty of published mathematical analyses of large corpuses that are useful and unobjectionable. I love me a good Google n-gram:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=fantods%2C+heebie-jeebies&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3

And large language models fill all kinds of important niches, like the Human Rights Data Analysis Group's LLM-based work helping the Innocence Project New Orleans' extract data from wrongful conviction case files:

https://hrdag.org/tech-notes/large-language-models-IPNO.html

So that's nuance number two: if we decide to make a new copyright law, we'll need to be very sure that we don't accidentally crush these beneficial activities that don't undermine artistic labor markets.

This brings me to the most important point: passing a new copyright law that requires permission to train an AI won't help creative workers get paid or protect our jobs.

Getty Images pays photographers the least it can get away with. Publishers contracts have transformed by inches into miles-long, ghastly rights grabs that take everything from writers, but still shifts legal risks onto them:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/19/reasonable-agreement/

Publishers like the New York Times bitterly oppose their writers' unions:

https://actionnetwork.org/letters/new-york-times-stop-union-busting

These large corporations already control the copyrights to gigantic amounts of training data, and they have means, motive and opportunity to license these works for training a model in order to pay us less, and they are engaged in this activity right now:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/technology/apple-ai-news-publishers.html

Big games studios are already acting as though there was a copyright in training data, and requiring their voice actors to begin every recording session with words to the effect of, "I hereby grant permission to train an AI with my voice" and if you don't like it, you can hit the bricks:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d37za/voice-actors-sign-away-rights-to-artificial-intelligence

If you're a creative worker hoping to pay your bills, it doesn't matter whether your wages are eroded by a model produced without paying your employer for the right to do so, or whether your employer got to double dip by selling your work to an AI company to train a model, and then used that model to fire you or erode your wages:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/09/ai-monkeys-paw/#bullied-schoolkids

Individual creative workers rarely have any bargaining leverage over the corporations that license our copyrights. That's why copyright's 40-year expansion (in duration, scope, statutory damages) has resulted in larger, more profitable entertainment companies, and lower payments – in real terms and as a share of the income generated by their work – for creative workers.

As Rebecca Giblin and I write in our book Chokepoint Capitalism, giving creative workers more rights to bargain with against giant corporations that control access to our audiences is like giving your bullied schoolkid extra lunch money – it's just a roundabout way of transferring that money to the bullies:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/21/what-is-chokepoint-capitalism/

There's an historical precedent for this struggle – the fight over music sampling. 40 years ago, it wasn't clear whether sampling required a copyright license, and early hip-hop artists took samples without permission, the way a horn player might drop a couple bars of a well-known song into a solo.

Many artists were rightfully furious over this. The "heritage acts" (the music industry's euphemism for "Black people") who were most sampled had been given very bad deals and had seen very little of the fortunes generated by their creative labor. Many of them were desperately poor, despite having made millions for their labels. When other musicians started making money off that work, they got mad.

In the decades that followed, the system for sampling changed, partly through court cases and partly through the commercial terms set by the Big Three labels: Sony, Warner and Universal, who control 70% of all music recordings. Today, you generally can't sample without signing up to one of the Big Three (they are reluctant to deal with indies), and that means taking their standard deal, which is very bad, and also signs away your right to control your samples.

So a musician who wants to sample has to sign the bad terms offered by a Big Three label, and then hand $500 out of their advance to one of those Big Three labels for the sample license. That $500 typically doesn't go to another artist – it goes to the label, who share it around their executives and investors. This is a system that makes every artist poorer.

But it gets worse. Putting a price on samples changes the kind of music that can be economically viable. If you wanted to clear all the samples on an album like Public Enemy's "It Takes a Nation of Millions To Hold Us Back," or the Beastie Boys' "Paul's Boutique," you'd have to sell every CD for $150, just to break even:

https://memex.craphound.com/2011/07/08/creative-license-how-the-hell-did-sampling-get-so-screwed-up-and-what-the-hell-do-we-do-about-it/

Sampling licenses don't just make every artist financially worse off, they also prevent the creation of music of the sort that millions of people enjoy. But it gets even worse. Some older, sample-heavy music can't be cleared. Most of De La Soul's catalog wasn't available for 15 years, and even though some of their seminal music came back in March 2022, the band's frontman Trugoy the Dove didn't live to see it – he died in February 2022:

https://www.vulture.com/2023/02/de-la-soul-trugoy-the-dove-dead-at-54.html

This is the third nuance: even if we can craft a model-banning copyright system that doesn't catch a lot of dolphins in its tuna net, it could still make artists poorer off.

Back when sampling started, it wasn't clear whether it would ever be considered artistically important. Early sampling was crude and experimental. Musicians who trained for years to master an instrument were dismissive of the idea that clicking a mouse was "making music." Today, most of us don't question the idea that sampling can produce meaningful art – even musicians who believe in licensing samples.

Having lived through that era, I'm prepared to believe that maybe I'll look back on AI "art" and say, "damn, I can't believe I never thought that could be real art."

But I wouldn't give odds on it.

I don't like AI art. I find it anodyne, boring. As Henry Farrell writes, it's uncanny, and not in a good way:

https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/large-language-models-are-uncanny

Farrell likens the work produced by AIs to the movement of a Ouija board's planchette, something that "seems to have a life of its own, even though its motion is a collective side-effect of the motions of the people whose fingers lightly rest on top of it." This is "spooky-action-at-a-close-up," transforming "collective inputs … into apparently quite specific outputs that are not the intended creation of any conscious mind."

Look, art is irrational in the sense that it speaks to us at some non-rational, or sub-rational level. Caring about the tribulations of imaginary people or being fascinated by pictures of things that don't exist (or that aren't even recognizable) doesn't make any sense. There's a way in which all art is like an optical illusion for our cognition, an imaginary thing that captures us the way a real thing might.

But art is amazing. Making art and experiencing art makes us feel big, numinous, irreducible emotions. Making art keeps me sane. Experiencing art is a precondition for all the joy in my life. Having spent most of my life as a working artist, I've come to the conclusion that the reason for this is that art transmits an approximation of some big, numinous irreducible emotion from an artist's mind to our own. That's it: that's why art is amazing.

AI doesn't have a mind. It doesn't have an intention. The aesthetic choices made by AI aren't choices, they're averages. As Farrell writes, "LLM art sometimes seems to communicate a message, as art does, but it is unclear where that message comes from, or what it means. If it has any meaning at all, it is a meaning that does not stem from organizing intention" (emphasis mine).

Farrell cites Mark Fisher's The Weird and the Eerie, which defines "weird" in easy to understand terms ("that which does not belong") but really grapples with "eerie."

For Fisher, eeriness is "when there is something present where there should be nothing, or is there is nothing present when there should be something." AI art produces the seeming of intention without intending anything. It appears to be an agent, but it has no agency. It's eerie.

Fisher talks about capitalism as eerie. Capital is "conjured out of nothing" but "exerts more influence than any allegedly substantial entity." The "invisible hand" shapes our lives more than any person. The invisible hand is fucking eerie. Capitalism is a system in which insubstantial non-things – corporations – appear to act with intention, often at odds with the intentions of the human beings carrying out those actions.

So will AI art ever be art? I don't know. There's a long tradition of using random or irrational or impersonal inputs as the starting point for human acts of artistic creativity. Think of divination:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/07/31/divination/

Or Brian Eno's Oblique Strategies:

http://stoney.sb.org/eno/oblique.html

I love making my little collages for this blog, though I wouldn't call them important art. Nevertheless, piecing together bits of other peoples' work can make fantastic, important work of historical note:

https://www.johnheartfield.com/John-Heartfield-Exhibition/john-heartfield-art/famous-anti-fascist-art/heartfield-posters-aiz

Even though painstakingly cutting out tiny elements from others' images can be a meditative and educational experience, I don't think that using tiny scissors or the lasso tool is what defines the "art" in collage. If you can automate some of this process, it could still be art.

Here's what I do know. Creating an individual bargainable copyright over training will not improve the material conditions of artists' lives – all it will do is change the relative shares of the value we create, shifting some of that value from tech companies that hate us and want us to starve to entertainment companies that hate us and want us to starve.

As an artist, I'm foursquare against anything that stands in the way of making art. As an artistic worker, I'm entirely committed to things that help workers get a fair share of the money their work creates, feed their families and pay their rent.

I think today's AI art is bad, and I think tomorrow's AI art will probably be bad, but even if you disagree (with either proposition), I hope you'll agree that we should be focused on making sure art is legal to make and that artists get paid for it.

Just because copyright won't fix the creative labor market, it doesn't follow that nothing will. If we're worried about labor issues, we can look to labor law to improve our conditions. That's what the Hollywood writers did, in their groundbreaking 2023 strike:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/01/how-the-writers-guild-sunk-ais-ship/

Now, the writers had an advantage: they are able to engage in "sectoral bargaining," where a union bargains with all the major employers at once. That's illegal in nearly every other kind of labor market. But if we're willing to entertain the possibility of getting a new copyright law passed (that won't make artists better off), why not the possibility of passing a new labor law (that will)? Sure, our bosses won't lobby alongside of us for more labor protection, the way they would for more copyright (think for a moment about what that says about who benefits from copyright versus labor law expansion).

But all workers benefit from expanded labor protection. Rather than going to Congress alongside our bosses from the studios and labels and publishers to demand more copyright, we could go to Congress alongside every kind of worker, from fast-food cashiers to publishing assistants to truck drivers to demand the right to sectoral bargaining. That's a hell of a coalition.

And if we do want to tinker with copyright to change the way training works, let's look at collective licensing, which can't be bargained away, rather than individual rights that can be confiscated at the entrance to our publisher, label or studio's offices. These collective licenses have been a huge success in protecting creative workers:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/26/united-we-stand/

Then there's copyright's wildest wild card: The US Copyright Office has repeatedly stated that works made by AIs aren't eligible for copyright, which is the exclusive purview of works of human authorship. This has been affirmed by courts:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/20/everything-made-by-an-ai-is-in-the-public-domain/

Neither AI companies nor entertainment companies will pay creative workers if they don't have to. But for any company contemplating selling an AI-generated work, the fact that it is born in the public domain presents a substantial hurdle, because anyone else is free to take that work and sell it or give it away.

Whether or not AI "art" will ever be good art isn't what our bosses are thinking about when they pay for AI licenses: rather, they are calculating that they have so much market power that they can sell whatever slop the AI makes, and pay less for the AI license than they would make for a human artist's work. As is the case in every industry, AI can't do an artist's job, but an AI salesman can convince an artist's boss to fire the creative worker and replace them with AI:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/29/pay-no-attention/#to-the-little-man-behind-the-curtain

They don't care if it's slop – they just care about their bottom line. A studio executive who cancels a widely anticipated film prior to its release to get a tax-credit isn't thinking about artistic integrity. They care about one thing: money. The fact that AI works can be freely copied, sold or given away may not mean much to a creative worker who actually makes their own art, but I assure you, it's the only thing that matters to our bosses.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/13/spooky-action-at-a-close-up/#invisible-hand

[being-kindrad]

Interest in a dedicated feminist online forum community?

What are women's thoughts here on an online feminist community, a forum (like phpBB for example), for discussions? Would enough women would be interested in this? Forum software has decreased in popularity, but is still used for niche subjects/communities. (Some real life examples: https://www.reef2reef.com/ and https://www.gardenstew.com/) I'm mildly interested in trying to set up forum software as a technical learning experience, but only if there would actually be interest in using it (because it would cost me money to buy a domain name and web hosting).

It seems like there are so little dedicated spaces for feminist women on the internet. Most feminist communities seem to be libfem, and/or plainly taken over by men (if they purport TWAW, then they definitely are taken over by men). Tumblr has a radfem community, but it's still part of a larger social media system which involves many TRAs (some of which harass radfems), and men, porn bots, etc. Ovarit is useful for consciousness raising, but it seems to me like the Overton window has been shifting towards more conservative takes than feminist ones, especially in how there appears to be more anti-trans takes on there than actual gender critical feminist ones, which kind of makes me bored of it. And so again, radfems are then stuck in a larger community, this one of conservative/non-feminist women, who are there because they dislike trans people and appear to have found a space where they can safely make fun of them and not actually to discuss gender critical content (the recent realization that I even need to be defending common feminist stances like women's right to abortion on Ovarit has been demoralizing). I basically want to make a place where feminist women can just take a break and not have to constantly be building up from ground zero, defending against TRA insults, arguing against conservative/right-wing rhetoric, and instead maybe discussing feminist topics or just chilling in some hobby forum sections or something, idk.

I was initially going to call it a "radfem community" but I see no reason for the community to not include women who identify more with other branches of feminism like gender critical feminism, black feminism, lesbian feminism, eco feminism, socialist feminism, intersectional feminism (I mean the original definition of intersectional, not "tumblrized intersectionality"), etc.

I think there would need to be some "gatekeeping" involved so that it doesn't end up filling up with neoliberal feminists ["choice feminism"] or "prolife feminists" [an oxymoron], so that would need to be figured out. This community would not be meant to be a place for feminists to have to hand-hold people and slowly explain over and over how gender is sexist, or how porn is misogyny, or how abortion is a part of women's healthcare and bodily autonomy. This place would be meant to be a solace from that. Imagine trying to participate in a Calculus class where people who haven't even taken algebra are constantly joining the class and asking "why the fuck are there letters with numbers in math now?!" The class would barely, if at all, progress. Likewise, this community would be for feminist women to have an agreed upon basis for basic feminist stances, and move forward with deeper analysis. There are plenty of other online communities for women who are new to (non-lib)feminism to learn about how "but I like wearing makeup, it's art" isn't a feminist stance. We don't need to keep spending finite energy hashing this out, we need to be able to move forward.

My basic thoughts so far:

It would be women-only. (But there would be no vetting that would involve requiring to share personal information, it would just be an honor system.)

I think there must be some basic feminist stances that members need to agree on, otherwise the community might as well just be a part of any mainstream social media platform. I would assume a decent starting point would be: gender critical, pro-choice, anti-prostitution, anti-pornography, anti-surrogacy, anti-beauty culture?

Some category ideas I have so far: feminism (with maybe different sections for the branches of feminism, and sections for discussing feminist books/websites/documentaries); politics (with sections for discussing or sharing news about feminist political topics like reproductive rights [for abortion, birth control, bodily autonomy], gender critical, surrogacy, prostitution, etc.; spirituality (for those who are into Wicca, or other spiritual beliefs); casual (for general chat, hobbies, music, arts, etc.)

So yeah, what are women's thoughts on here about this?

Would this type of community interest you?

What would you want to see in it?

What would you not want to see in it?

Has this been done before and I am just oblivious? (I tried searching for "feminist forum," but nothing relevant seem to come up.)

Am I naive and this is not going to work?

Please let me know! I welcome any opinions. Thank you. 💜

[probablyasocialecologist]

The Brutalist’s most intriguing and controversial technical feature points forward rather than back: in January, the film’s editor Dávid Jancsó revealed that he and Corbet used tools from AI speech software company Respeecher to make the Hungarian-language dialogue spoken by Adrien Brody (who plays the protagonist, Hungarian émigré architect László Tóth) and Felicity Jones (who plays Tóth’s wife Erzsébet) sound more Hungarian. In response to the ensuing backlash, Corbet clarified that the actors worked “for months” with a dialect coach to perfect their accents; AI was used “in Hungarian language dialogue editing only, specifically to refine certain vowels and letters for accuracy.” In this way, Corbet seemed to suggest, the production’s two central performances were protected against the howls of outrage that would have erupted from the world’s 14 million native Hungarian speakers had The Brutalist made it to screens with Brody and Jones playing linguistically unconvincing Magyars. Far from offending the idea of originality and authorship in performance, AI in fact saved Brody and Jones from committing crimes against the Uralic language family; I shudder even to imagine how comically inept their performances might have been without this technological assist, a catastrophe of fumbled agglutinations, misplaced geminates, and amateur-hour syllable stresses that would have no doubt robbed The Brutalist of much of its awards season élan. This all seems a little silly, not to say hypocritical. Defenders of this slimy deception claim the use of AI in film is no different than CGI or automated dialogue replacement, tools commonly deployed in the editing suite for picture and audio enhancement. But CGI and ADR don’t tamper with the substance of a performance, which is what’s at issue here. Few of us will have any appreciation for the corrected accents in The Brutalist: as is the case, I imagine, for most of the people who’ve seen the film, I don’t speak Hungarian. But I do speak bullshit, and that’s what this feels like. This is not to argue that synthetic co-pilots and assistants of the type that have proliferated in recent years hold no utility at all. Beyond the creative sector, AI’s potential and applications are limitless, and the technology seems poised to unleash a bold new era of growth and optimization. AI will enable smoother reductions in headcount by giving managers more granular data on the output and sentiment of unproductive workers; it will allow loan sharks and crypto scammers to get better at customer service; it will offer health insurance companies the flexibility to more meaningfully tie premiums to diet, lifestyle, and sociability, creating billions in savings; it will help surveillance and private security solution providers improve their expertise in facial recognition and gait analysis; it will power a revolution in effective “pre-targeting” for the Big Pharma, buy-now-pay-later, and drone industries. Within just a few years advances like these will unlock massive productivity gains that we’ll all be able to enjoy in hell, since the energy-hungry data centers on which generative AI relies will have fried the planet and humanity will be extinct.

3 March 2025