This is a fantastic article.

Thanks for your response. I realize I muddied the waters on my question by mentioning exact copies.

My real question is based on the ‘everything is a remix’ idea. I can create a work ‘in the style of Banksy’ and sell it. The US copyright and trademark laws state that a work only has to be 10% differentiated from the original in order to be legal to use, so creating a piece of work that ‘looks like it could have been created by Banksy, but was not created by Banksy’ is legal.

So since most AI does not create exact copies, this is where I find the licensing argument possibly weak. I really haven’t seen AI like MidJourney creating exact replicas of works - but admittedly, I am not following every single piece of art created on Midjourney, or Stable Diffusion, or DALL-E, or any of the other platforms, and I’m not an expert in the trademarking laws to the extent I can answer these questions.

I think this is a difficult concept to tackle, but the main argument I see about using existing works as ‘training data’ is the idea that ‘everything is a remix’.

I, as a human, can paint an exact copy of a Picasso work or any other artist. This is not illegal and I have no need of a license to do this. I definitely don’t need a license to paint something ‘in the style of Picasso’, and I can definitely sell it with my own name on it.

But the question is, what about when a computer does the same thing? What is the difference? Speed? Scale? Anyone can view a picture of the Mona Lisa at any time and make their own painting of it. You can’t use the image of the Mona Lisa without accreditation and licensing, but what about a recreation of the Mona Lisa?

I’m not really arguing pro-AI here, although it may sound like it. I’ve just heard the ‘licensing’ argument many times and I’d really like to hear what the difference between a human copying and a computer copying are, if someone knows more about the law.

So, 95% chance that humans will cause human extinction.

And humans created AI, so even if AI does in the human race, it will still have been humans.

I guess if humans go extinct, it’s close to 100% due to humans.

Best part of the article:

“Goel’s scheme was uncovered in an in-depth investigation by reporter Allie Conti in 2019, who detangled the plot after being double-booked at one of his properties in Chicago and receiving a suspicious last-minute cancellation. Conti was contacted by the FBI days after the article was published.”

I wish there was more of this. Good investigative journalism has been one of the most powerful weapons in justice, and I fear it’s diminishing rapidly.

I imagine Kick.com might leverage this but who knows

Yes, her position is even more defensible than I anticipated. She’s clearly correct and following Maine law, as she states.

I’ve seen the Joe Rogan and Dr. Phil ads mentioned in the article, as well as George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks and others. I’ve reported the ads multiple times.YouTube needs to squash this NOW instead of just pretending they aren’t aware of it.

deleted by creator

Syria would beg to differ.

Iran would beg to differ.

Yemen would beg to differ.

Google: “Our search results are better than ever!”

also Google: “Publicly pointing out how you gamed our search results will result in us manually deleting your site from our results. Also, nothing to see here.”

Not only is this breach incredibly bad - exposing SSN, DOB, bank account numbers, address - the company slow walked reporting what was happening in real time.

The hackers were openly posting about the incompetence of Mr. Cooper’s IT team, so security firms and journalists knew that Mr. Cooper was compromised even though the company stated it was ‘just an outage’ then they claimed it impacted 4 million users, when it turned out to over 14 million. Unreal.

Tickets, yes, door keys, no.

The index fund options in many 401Ks underperform - this is just across the average, not all 401ks. Some 401Ks have general stock market index funds, some only offer index funds in specific sectors or target metrics.

The analysis I ran started with the question: ‘given the average 401k, compare returns including average match against general stock market index funds’.

My assumption going in was that 401Ks would return better results because of the employer match, but that’s not the case on average. The average investor would have significantly more money if they’d just invested in ‘market’ index funds, and it wasn’t even close.

That being said, 401Ks or general ETF funds are still risky and inferior when compared to pensions and social security.

401Ks, in general, are a terrible substitute for pensions and social security. The GOP wanted to push Americans’ retirement funds into the stock market, and they did that with 401Ks.

I ran some basic analysis a few weeks ago, and even with the corporate matching on 401Ks, due to the poor fund investment options available in most 401Ks, they underperformed index funds over a 30 year period.

Yes, that means many people who contributed to their 401K at full amount, even with matching, have less money than someone who just invested in SPY or VOO over the same period.

I’ve thought for years - long before Trump ever ran for president - that he’s just a trust fund kid who spends his annual allowance on pretending to be a business man.

Basically he just flew around the country in a private plane, wore a bad suit and claimed to be in business, but no business he ever engaged in actually made money. His family real estate holdings existed before he was playing ‘business’ and his own investments have either failed completely or, in the case of New York real estate, underperformed compared to the market.

His family made him rich by the time he was nine years old, and he wrote a book about what a great businessman he was (despite not actually having built any of that wealth himself) and then he just pretended to be a business magnate until NBC came along and let him do it on television.

There is a significant number of people who can’t differentiate between image and reality. If a writer creates horror books, they believe that writer is secretly a serial killer or similar. If an actor plays a stripper in a movie, they believe that actor really is someone who would work in the sex trade. They can’t imagine it’s an illusion. So for them, Trump is a magnate despite the evidence.

‘A massive tech exodus’ in the headline, then names 3 large companies who never actually moved to Texas, and 3 companies nobody’s ever heard of.

This isn’t journalism.

The problem is not that driverless cars won’t be viable. The problem is the same as several other tech developments where a few startups promise tech that hasn’t matured yet, taking in billions of ‘stupid’ money from investors who are greedy but not knowledgeable about the underlying viability of what can realistically be done in a decade.

One hundred years from now? Driverless cars will be old news, so common or maybe even surpassed with something newer. But investors want a 10 year explosion of cash, not a 50 year investment.

Lemmy and Reddit users are always simultaneously saying ‘pay people a living wage!’ while also saying ‘no ads, and make it free forever’.

Ah yes, SalesForce, one of the entrenched bastions supporting dinosaur companies. Apparently they suddenly have their finger on the pulse of the modern workforce, despite not being connected to it.