FWIW, my profession was computer programmer. I was also an artist using various traditional media. (Not professional grade, but not bad, either.) I didn't like it for itself, but only for social reasons.

So....
Artist is an ill-defined term, but since any piece of garbage text is (automatically) copyright, I see absolutely no reason that a cleverly manipulated bunch of pigments shouldn't be copyright, no matter WHAT tool was used to create it. And no matter how *I* rate it's esthetic appeal.

OTOH, what this really means is that I think the copyright laws are a foul mess, and should be repealed. But with the laws as they are currently implemented, there's no reasonable justification for refusing to grant a copyright.

as long as the topic is not controversial and political.

The problem is that the Wiki mods are VERY VERY biased. Not just a little. I have run into this personally just trying to make very simple edits. They would not accept simple facts that I had backup sources for.

This was just for movie credits for an actress that at some point had turned conservative...

So for anything political, Wikipide will be factually wrong, sometimes (or often) egregiously so.

But that's ok if it's only for political content right???

But there's the trouble you see. It affects what is political TO THEM in ways you cannot comprehend, so ANY page might be touched by the corruption of the Wikipedia moderator biases. I wouldn't think a simply actress filmography would be affected yet it was. No visitor other than that page would ever know it was inaccurate or incomplete.

So you can trust absolutely nothing from Wikipedia without extensive checking of what facts they refuse to list. Which makes the entire body of work garbage - I have not used it for years now.

That's "would be legal under this act", but if, say, ChatGPT collected non-public data (I believe it does, but probably not about rents) then iwould it be legal? And if it merely collected "a wide span of data in various formats" it could plausibly have the same practical effect. So some would be inspired to write an additional piece of legislation.

Oh yeah we absolutely can. There was rampant collusion going on and it was being done through software so they thought they could get away with it.

I could see landlords in such a case claiming that there was no intent to collude and that the case should be dismissed because the prosecution failed to demonstrate mens rea . If that works, about the only thing the legislature can do is amend the act, making it a strict liability crime.

If you find that the Nespresso's coffee is too bitter for you, add a pinch of salt to it. This trick even makes Starbucks' over-roasted, burnt and bitter swill palatable when I have no other choice.

I live in Colorado and I bought one by mail order five or six years ago. It works really great, and doesn't have problems with the fact that I live at 6100' so that water boils at about 192F, or 89C.

AI will probably add some interesting twists to this. Will it be illegal to ask ChatGPT "What should I rent my house for?"?

Don't say they can't be useful. I like this. I generally also like laws like the GDPR that enable EU regulators to fine megacorps for 50 bazillion Euros if they choose to get pissy with the rules and ignore them. Good stuff. Gotta hand it to the EU.

One of the most fascinating aspects of H2O is the sheer number of forms it can take under different conditions.

I don't really think you can trust everything they say to be a lie.

That's harsh. But the do need to remember what the term "bleeding edge" means.

Sorry, but you're wrong. LLMs are already quite useful in science and math...but not with the internet as a training basis. The LLMs that are useful in sciences need to be specialized for the particular science, and they need to be used as hypothesis generators rather than as answer givers. They can also be used to filter out noise (though in that case there's more need to beware of errors).

I'd call that an "if" rather than an entailed consequence. There are LOTS of ways to maintain a monopoly.

In 1960 "made in Japan" was an insult. In 1970 it was a compliment.

Countries have competed against each other since the earliest records.
If we're extremely fortunate, perhaps we can keep this competition on economic grounds.