By the politicians? I’d love to see that so hopefully if it exists it comes out haha
My point however was that the “rabid congresswoman” absolutely could have assaulted the police.
FreedomAdvocate
joined 3 weeks ago
They do, but the point still stands. No one “owns” what these AIs are learning. That’s what they’re doing - learning, and they’re learning from copyrighted material the same way people learn from copyrighted material. The copyright holders - mainly artists - are just super upset about it because it’s showing that what they provide can be easily learned and emulated by computers.
They’re the horse and carriage sellers when cars were invented.
It’s the same reason why I find the lefts calls for censorship, prosecution of political opponents, stuffing the courts, banning of political parties, etc to be so incredibly stupid and naive.
They don’t understand that while those things are “great” when it’s their beloved do-no-wrong party in power - they won’t be in power forever! When they aren’t in power, those very same laws will be used against them but 10x worse due to the effects of those laws being used against the now-in-power party.
Yeah I don’t care about “karma” or any scores, but I do like to use it as a way to gauge the “temperature” of the conversation. As soon as the dogpiling starts happening, and benign comments that are in no way disagreeable - or even the same as other comments that are highly upvoted - are mass downvoted, you know that you’re in a circle jerk echo chamber.
I’ll happily continue voicing my opinion and defending my stance, but I know it’s a losing battle because the majority aren’t here to actually learn or discuss or change their minds - they’re here to circle jerk and tell each other how bad the thing they hate is and shame those who don’t hate it as much as they do.
The NYT is factually wrong.
They aren’t “trying to” do what the NYT says they are, the actual quote in the article even proves that. They said it’s something that they might consider. Those are not the same things.
If they were “trying to” they would have begun proceedings to do it. Have they? No.
Stop spreading misinformation
Oh the irony.
“Inspired by” is such a great term as it means you can completely fabricate as much as you want, not grounded in reality, not based on anything that ever actually happened, and still have some people believe that it’s based on real life events.
“Inspired by” means absolutely nothing.
Randomly generated username my friend :)
Also Lemmy as a whole is absolutely politically captured. One read of these comments shows that. Also hilariously Lemmy was literally made by hardcore communist ideologists, and they still own and develop it. Right from day 1 it was politically captured, and the influx of far left users and the extreme censorship and hatred of anything even right of far-left hasn’t changed.
Hi there, I’m a tech enthusiast who has worked in the industry longer than you’ve been alive. I know how they work, but thanks for trying to teach me (honestly, good on you for the way you’ve gone about your post)
Closing the screen hasn’t been a complete shutdown in at least a decade. It defaults to a low power state. On devices that are more “always on” like Win10onARM and Chromebook devices, they default to a low power state that still receive notifications etc. This can be changed, but likely not on a school owned and issued device.
Yes, they obviously track everything you do on school issued devices. This should be clear to everyone. It would be spelled out in the terms and conditions of getting it in the first place. The case you’re talking about was almost 20 years ago iirc (2007 I believe), and the photos taken by the device were part of a “help us retrieve stolen devices” thing, that was “not adequately explained” to the parents/kids. It would regularly take photos so it could have evidence of who stole them and where they might be.
If there is there shouldn’t be. Things like diplomatic immunity are terrible and should not exist.
a) No one is suggesting AI be regarded as equal to a person under law though?
b) if the music is being streamed then it’s up to the streaming company to pay the artists royalties. I have Spotify and I don’t pay the artists - Spotify does.
If the argument is “the people feeding data into the AI illegally acquired the content” then sure, argue that and prosecute them for piracy or whatever. That’s not the argument that is being made though.