So for the past several weeks, I have been running my phone almost exclusively in greyscale. This is a tactic that is normally recommended for reducing phone usage, and can be easily done in iOS and Android through accessibility settings. The primary argument is without the colours to grab your attention, the phone looks less enticing.

My experience has been mostly positive, with a few drawbacks. Overall, it has made me use my phone less, although it is not the only change I have done.

Benefits:

• I do find my phone less distracting. It is less appealing.
• Text based content still works great.
• Images are normally readable, although sometimes I miss subtlety in images.
• If needed I can toggle it off, but I rarely do so.

Drawbacks:

• It took me several days to adjust, and it was a hard adjustment period.
• Some apps use colour for organization. The biggest offender in my use case for this is Three Cheers for Tildes. Overall the app is great, but new comments being denoted by an orange line is not readable for me. However, this just at times leads me to wait until I am at a desktop to look at the thread. I do think both on website and in apps Tildes should look at putting new comments with a dotted line, to not rely only on colour for accessibility reasons.

Surprises:

• The biggest surprise for me is how unappealing my phone is in colour, since the use of colour everywhere is jarring. Most people do not realize how bright and colourful even phone menus are, until they run greyscale for an extended period of time. It has become more obvious to me how much app developers (and even OS developers) are using colour to grab our attention and suck us in.

Sorry if this is a dumb question, I've done some browsing and haven't found an obvious answer. Subscribing to the a tildes rss feed works great, except that link topics open the link itself, not the Tildes thread. I'd ideally want it to open the thread in the first instance, not the link directly. Is this something that's possible that I just haven't been able to figure out?

I saw both of these stories on Lemmy today. They show two different facets to the topic of AI.

This first story is from the perspective of cynicism about AI and how it has been overhyped.
If AI is so good, where are the open source contributions

But if AI is so obviously superior … show us the code. Where’s the receipts? Let’s say, where’s the open source code contributions using AI?

The second story is about crony capitalism, deregulation, and politics around AI:

GOP sneaks decades long AI regulation ban into spending bill

On Sunday night, House Republicans added language to the Budget Reconciliation bill that would block all state and local governments from regulating AI for 10 years, 404 Media reports. The provision, introduced by Representative Brett Guthrie of Kentucky, states that "no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10 year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act

I saw these stories minutes apart, and they really make me feel even more cynical and annoyed by AI than I was yesterday. Because:

• In the short term AI is largely a boondoggle, which won’t work as advertised but still humans will be replaced by it because the people who hire don’t understand it’s limitations but they fear missing out on a gold rush.
• The same shady people at the AI companies who are stealing your art and content, in order to sell a product that will replace you, are writing legislation to protect themselves from being held accountable
• They also are going to be protected from any skynet-style disasters caused by their recklessness

I've been writing, editing and designing a book in my spare time for the last four years. After a pro edit, I finally got it to the point that I was comfortable sending it out to a few people in my field for some feedback.

Meanwhile I've been reading up on self publishing and now I'm realizing how hard it is to stay in control of your work.

There are many warnings about scammers. As soon as you self publish on any of the common sites like Amazon or Ingram Spark, you will be contacted by "publishers" and "advertising experts" and "promoters" who all have an interest in trying to make a buck off you. Mostly they want to gain control of your work for their own benefit and some will post it for free even if you have it advertised at a low price elsewhere, just to gain traffic and views.

Getting your work pirated is almost a given for digital books. And how in the world do you stop THAT from happening when a PDF or ePUB file is super easy to copy and send in a second?

If that's not the greatest insult, with the help of AI, someone can easily copy your book and use AI to rewrite in a different voice or style and republish it as their own. The chances of proving that it was originally your work then become next to impossible. If it's completely rewritten is it still your work? How do you prove it?

I've done the best I can - copyright registered the book, applied for an ISBN number and have a watermark on the pre release copy. But it still feels pretty vulnerable.

I had never thought of these issues before I had something worth publishing but I suppose the same issues apply to just about any digital work - music, art, software. Trying to maintain control of your work in a digital age can easily be a game of Whack-A-Mole even if you want to spend your savings on lawyers and cease and desist letters and take down requests.