i heard a similar idea that if humans can’t see air then maybe undersea creatures can’t see water. so fish would be like birds and crustaceans would be like land dwellers. so yeah jellyfish being storm clouds checks out

you’re right, i think we’re in agreement. the side with guns and tanks retaliated against the side with bricks and molotov cocktails by opening fire

I’m less concerned about the specifics of where it happened and how many people died, and more concerned about how military personnel shot live ammunition at citizens.

According to the Tiananmen Papers, a collection of internal Communist party files, soldiers started using live ammunition at around 10.30pm, after trying and failing to disperse the crowd with tear gas and rubber bullets.

my favorite part about these kinds of comments is that the article they commonly cite basically says there was no tiananmen massacre because the massacre happened outside of the square in the rest of beijing, and that’s treated like it’s some big gotcha

i imagine this problem is negligible because of how easily people can travel. diseases don’t stop spreading when they see a political border, and there are plenty of other places in the world that are much more remote and more likely to have diseases americans are not resistant to

Not to disagree, but what examples are there of a different system being practiced which have a more even distribution of wealth?

third person checking in here

agreed, it’ll just be automated and even faster now

That’s a very misleading title, since “battles” here is referring to survey results and not actual legal battles. The results make sense though. AI will probably generate the most popular kind of post because that’s what has the most representation in its training data.

The main issue here is what is “popular” changes over time, and is directly related to what is available to the public. So if AI floods the internet with the same style of posts because it’s currently the most popular, that style will quickly become boring, and using AI to get clicks will essentially lead to it writing itself into obsolescence. Until it gets trained or fine tuned on a new dataset which includes its own results, which leads to a separate issue where the training data is objectively bad.

“if you were lazy, you’d be having fun” was one of those life changing sentences for me

it was definitely annoying that’s for sure

sometimes it’s something that can’t be looked up like a song tune or a scene from a show. i tried searching once using humming and it didn’t work, but thankfully it only took a couple days for me to remember where it was from

There’s a difference between using AI as a tool and using it as a solution. Though knowing how this society works, it’ll start off as a tool like now, and soon enough the higher ups will wonder why humans are even necessary in the process, especially when they need to be paid, and against everyone else’s objections they’ll get rid of the human verification part and use only AI, and when things go wrong the people in charge will go “who could have seen it coming?”

The US copyright office says this on their website

Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution.

If the company downloaded books without buying them to train their AI, that’s copyright infringement

US

UK

EU

Australia cuz why the hell not

The uploader is the infringing party, not the downloader.

an exclusive right of the copyright holder is the right to duplicate their work. downloading IS illegal because you’re creating an unauthorized duplicate of the work on your machine. your duplicate is distinct from the duplicate that someone else had created and uploaded. it’s just very hard to get caught downloading, and it’s not very cost effective for companies to pursue since they would only stop one person. that’s why most companies like the RIAA targeted torrents for their lawsuits, because they could easily see the ip addresses (which is why you should always use a vpn when torrenting) and because they could shut down uploaders. but downloading itself is still very illegal

My work does not violate copyright, unless I use a substantial part of the other works.

like I said, the AI is not a violation (probably, unless the courts later disagree), it’s proof that unauthorized duplication of copyrighted works has occurred, and that is illegal

There was still copyright infringement because the company probably downloaded the text (which created another copy) and modified it (alteration is also protected by copyright) before using it as training data. If you write an original novel and admit that you had pirated a bunch of novels to use for reference, those novels were still downloaded illegally even if you’ve deleted them by now. The AI isn’t copyright infringement itself, it’s proof that copyright infringement has happened.

But personally I don’t think the actual laws will matter so much as which side has the better case for why they will lead to more innovation and growth for the economy.

they do have some good starters in that sub