It really, really is. Why can't we just focus on what is best for the particular thing being programmed (/ specific way of going about it), focus on advancing those languages and tools where and when needed, and stop this fucking dick waving contest? ~_~

Oh horseshit. The companies who made these streaming networks are the ones who chose the implementations, the way to go about it, or to change how they go about it. That is not the user's fault, never has been, and never will be. You're literally taking away agency for others that exists, and smacks you right in the face.

Depends on how big that plural is (since an X of say 1, or even 40, or 100 would hold less weight potentially than 300, 2,000, 20,000, etc, but all of these are plurals). Also depends on if we are dealing with absolute universal statements (like "for every X, all X also are Y") in which you do need merely a single counter-example to render the statement false.

But that's the thing, many open source models are not tied to any company, and many can absolutely be made that aren't tied to any one company. Not to mention that it is still the internet, if it is avaiable online publicly, people will get to it.

How would you legally require it for models not hosted in the country(/countries) where such legislation would hypothetically be implemented? How would you handle the existence of open source models without requiring intrusive surveillance to achieve the goal?

*sigh*

That assumes "the work being copyrighted" is the problem - and not the permission or lack thereof, and whether or not permission is needed, which IMO is dangerous thinking.

And ignores that anything eligible created in a country where copyright is automatic is copyrighted.

We really need to shift away from the copyright STATUS being the key focus, otherwise we are gonna risk creating more problems - problems for us, and creators, that benefit the corporations we're concerned about in the first place. For example, the idiots ho say "just make it illegal to train on any copyrighted work," ignoring the automatic nature of copyright, and that this would make it impossible to make opt in models (since those works would still be copyrighted works).

IMO ... that takes away too much agency from people who use AI as a reason to do things - when their doing things (and especially jackassed things, generally speaking at least) is something solely they do / nobody points a gun to their head and makes them do.

Take the witch hunting of artists over percieved use of AI on Twitter. People actually try to blaim AI for that. Horseshit, that's a choice PEOPLE who levy the accusations make. They CHOOSE to jump to conclusions, only they can choose to do that / nobody is forcing them to do that.

If this ever came into fruition, I wonder if a possible application could be in imaging and mapping underwater shipwrecks without having to go inside physically (and without the limitations of current ROVs).

Maybe I'm just wishing there were some way to get inside and image the Titanic before it's too late.

Not for allegedly infringing on a copyright on the scale of downloading stuff with bitTorrent, etc (which to be pedantic is not theft since we are talking legal issues here). Also think it premature to say "don't do the crime" when whether they actually did anything unlawful like the claimmants claim is ... well, not settled yet, in that this is what the purpose of the lawsuit is for, to settle that very point.

How much of this is actually FROM aging, and how much is from a combination of diet, exercise and activity level or lack thereof, bad habits that IMO are perpetuated by our current work culture, etc?

So many factors potentially involved - we need, IMO, answers based on complete questions that factor in as many variables as possible. Remember how so many people believed that your metabolism tanks after 30, and yet years later on it was found that in fact it stays relatively level until ~60?

And companies that do this shit will keep gaslighting us into thinking products HAVE to go up in cost, that financial issues are inevitable, and into thinking that opposing that notion is somehow socialism or communism (such as suggesting that whatever pay and bonuses for C-suites is not in stocks but actual currency can be reduced to better pay employees and give the company more money in case of financial hardships while still allowing the C-suites to live very comfortably annually). It's utterly retarded how much those things have been allowed to fester unchallenged.

Not really - between the people in a country not being a monolith, and people voting X way or Y way not necessarily preventing you from seeing patterns (accuracy or lack thereof aside).

Well, today I learned! Interesting factoid!

I'm personally fond of Jarlsberg.

One question I would have here, with voices, is how do you go about gaining that without taking away rights from others - for example someone who may coincidentally have a similar voice to make a model of their own voice, etc?


Sounds silly, I know, but I am speaking from the perspective of someone who has a huge biological family (learned about it 12 years ago in fact), who despite not growing up together have a metric fuckton of similarities in habit, behavior, voice, and appearance too.

People are not snowflakes - in that we are not so unique that features found in one person aren't unable to be present in another. If we don't go about dealing with the AI issues carefully, we could end up making IP laws and the like even more fucked up than they really are - and in a way that benefits the corporations that people are afraid of/trying to wrangle in the first place.