It's not exactly like training a person, because human brains and computers are different, additionally a human looking at art is generally what the art is for and the human getting greater understanding of art at the same time is a bit of a side-effect.

That said, it's not exactly like making a copy either. It's generally undefined in legal terms, because laws have been written on the assumption that a person looking at it or some kind of literal copying procedure are the only important things which are done with art, but it exists in a space somewhere in between the two, having elements of both.

There is no way to tell whether anything which isn't human is conscious. There is no test which you can devise which will give one result if the subject is conscious and a different result if it is not. Even when it comes to other humans, you need some sort of reasoning like "well, I am when not in deep sleep, and this is fundamental to my behaviour, and I seem to follow the same basic behavioural tendencies as those around me..." Even if you build an AI which does absolutely everything a human can do including describing feelings which change in the same way as human feelings do etc, you can't demonstrate that it's conscious and isn't just behaving like that. And equally, you can't demonstrate that emacs is not conscious. Everything is unknowably conscious.

Employment laws in the US vary a lot from state to state.

A lot of the time when you hear some complete bullshit reasoning from the powerful like this, it's not supposed to be either an attempt to engage with reality or an attempt to convince anyone, it's more like a social cohesion mantra for their friend group. This friend group is typically powered by shared interests and collusion amongst its rich and powerful members, and its less powerful members dealing with their fears and insecurities by identifying with something which projects strength.

They're called "GoFundMe". They include a representation that anything on the platform requesting funds is doing that for themselves right in the company name.

It's illegal in the UK, it's fraud by false representation. They are making a false representation that these organisations are using their platform for fundraising with hope to gain financially from it.

If you're going to have the same UTC+? time throughout the year, that should be chosen so that the sun is at its highest point at noon somewhere close to the centre of the zone using this time. If this means you're doing things at the wrong time, change the time at which you do these things, don't make time itself perpetually silly. The only sensible reason to have time where the sun sometimes peaks in the wrong place is if you want to change the sun-based time at which you do things between winter and summer.

Corporate free speech is bollocks. Human rights are for human beings. Also, corporations do not have opinions, they cannot "disagree" with anything. You need a brain to have opinions. Only humans (well, animals) have brains.

I think the problem is more that cops have to do all sorts of evil things as part of enforcing capital and whatever bigotry is codified where you are, which means anyone who joins is either too stupid to notice, or too evil to care,

Most of the stuff "AI" is heavily marketed for is stuff that it cannot actually do properly, but this seems like an area where it can actually be useful. Things like textures in a game are not the focus of the creative effort, they mostly don't really need to express human creativity, they just need to be there and to be good enough. You don't normally gaze at a wall hoping it will inspire you or make you feel something whilst playing a game.

That's projecting human motivations which have developed due to the way humans evolved onto an intelligence of unknown nature.

So, nobody has the faintest idea how to actually go about building a super-intelligent AI. (Unless some very clever people are keeping a very big secret somewhere.) So what's the ban supposed to apply to? And if and when people do figure out something, banning it in a few countries isn't going to help.

This is a case of good use of BMI, i.e. when doing statistics. BMI gets a bad reputation because of people applying it to individual cases, which is not what it's for.

There's always going to be a systemic problem so long as we have capitalism, because capitalism relies upon maintaining a systemic problem, specifically, workers being paid less than the value of their labour, which is, on average, where profits come from..

As if Japan is the only country to have ever attacked other countries. (BTW, If you want to paint the country from nearly a century ago in a bad light, something like the civilians of Nanjing would be a better choice.) Anyway, any "AI" worthy of the term or of great importance to the world shouldn't have to rape the whole internet before it can work properly and then fail to operate within any legal or ethical codes, it should be able to learn just from inputs from consenting sources and have some idea about things it should do and things it shouldn't do.