Founds the commie insurgent.

Irrelevant, when the work it not copyrightable to begin with.

Star Trek established 50 years ago that computers should have women's voices, because a computer with a man's voice would turn on you eventually.

The actual science on the "pay gap" says that it comes from two sources:

First, women negotiate differently for pay than men. Men generally negotiate primarily for money, consistent with the traditional societal role of being the "breadwinner." Women negotiate more for flexibility, consistent with the traditional societal role as caregivers for family, especially children. In short, women are, on average, more likely to negotiate for flexible hours so they can take the kids to school, than men.

And second, women take more time off after childbirth, by enough of a margin (often a few weeks vs several months or even a year) that a woman of a given age will have less seniority than a man of the same age in the same job.

Taking the second into account, a lot of the pay gap goes away.

Censorship is speech that causes considerable harm to the both the victim and the one doing it.

The difference between not wanting to see their show and not wanting anyone else to see their show is very important. The former is ordinary, the latter his dangerous, cult-like behavior.

It hasn't been to SCOTUS yet, but the current position of the Library of Congress (whose decision it is, so far) is that stuff created by AI is not, in fact, copyrightable. There's case law on it.

That is how it works. So far.

No, you're missing that it being irrelevant is the point.

I believe that's the point.

You say that like you believe it's not one of those bots.

So how is this different from the way it's always worked? It's never been difficult to spot AI slop precisely because of how similar it all is.

What's really funny is watching the rsilvergun bot masturbating to its Chinese master's photos. But not in a "funny, ha ha" sort of way. More like a "funny, dinner didn't taste as good coming up as it did going down" sort of way.

It was very much built upon an existing code base. If not, what was the AI trained on then?

I'm still impressed that the Teams web client can't edit a message with an emoji in it without messing up the keyboard controls and often corrupting the message and losing data. It's had this bug for years. It's literally a messaging app where you can't reliably send messages.

The exclamation point at the end is a clue.