I don’t think you’ve fully realized what is going on. The message Trump is sending is “if you do my bidding, there will be no consequences”. The law is now a tool to protect those people Trump wants protected, and a weapon to hurt those Trump wants hurt.

Classic fascism. Buckle up.

Well, that’s a good point but I still think there are better services than Twitter/microblogging for that. Like our old friend RSS

Sure, but you can get that with something more long-form, too; it’s not exclusive to Twitter/microblogging .

I would argue that the format incentivizes short quips and discussions lacking nuance in favor of brevity, and yes, therefore it’s “bad” (to use their term) to use Twitter even if musk wasn’t turning it into Truth Social.

Well, arguably the microblogging format does have some intrinsic disadvantages.

Are you speaking legally or morally when you say someone “aught” to do something?

You most certainly can. The discussion about whether copyright applies to the output is nuanced but certainly valid, and notably separate from whether copyright allows copyright holders to restrict who or what gets trained on their work after it’s released for general consumption.

The article is literally about someone suing to prevent their art from being used for training. That’s the topic at hand.

Are you confused, or are you trying to shoehorn a different but related discussion into this one?

I was under the impression we were talking about using copyright to prevent a work from being used to train a generative model. There’s nothing in copyright that says anything about training anything. I’m not even convinced there should be.

There’s nothing in copyright law that covers this scenario, so anyone that says it’s “obviously” one way or the other is telling you an opinion, not a fact.

I subscribed to releases! Good work so far!

This is probably right. LLMs can be used as a replacement for people (well, almost), or it can be used as a tool for people. Where that line is will be crucial.

I also don’t think it’s the same kind of “”“AI”“” as the kind that would be used to recreate a person’s likeness. That’s almost certainly going to be covered under copyright. (I bring this up because the article mentions it).

And even if there somehow is no line and any script written even partially by an AI cannot be copyrighted (unlikely I think) then the resulting film is still eligible for copyright protections.

You should back those things up with more than “because I said so” is what you should do.

I’m not sure your second point is as strong as you believe it to be. Do you have a specific example in mind? I think most vehicle problems that would require an emergency responder will have easy access to a tow service to deal with the car with or without a human being involved. It’s not like just because a human is there that the problem is more easily solved. For minor-to-moderate accidents that just require a police report, things might get messy but that’s an issue with the law, not necessarily something inherently wrong with the concept of self driving vehicles.

Also, your first point is on shaky ground, I think. I don’t know why the metric is accidents with fatalities, but since that’s what you used, what do you think having fewer humans involved does to the chance of killing a human?

I’m all for numbers being crunched, and to be clear (as you were, I think) the numbers are the real deciding metrics here, not thought experiments.

And I think it’s 100% true that autonomous transportation doesn’t have to be perfect, just better than humans. Not that you disagree with this, but it is probably what people are thinking when they say “humans do this too”.

I appreciate what you mean but the idea that human rights aren’t granted is just a philosophy, not something that actually matches reality.

That is to say, whether I agree with your premise or not doesn’t change reality at all.

Wait… our national parks are the example you came up with?

What about our system do you think qualifies at “working”?

That’s probably a typo, read the title.

And speaking of this weak ass defense you’ve got going, let’s take it one step higher. Do you think developing countries should use America as the shining example of what to be? Surely there are better countries in the world to strive to emulate than America.

How sure are you? If licenses were such valuable troves of information, surely one person would have thought of a small hidden camera, right?

Double check the OPs question.

The whole country is impacted when rights are stripped from anyone. Look at what you’re saying: If some people are living a good life then it can’t be all that bad. Well, Elon Musk is living a pretty swell life so it doesn’t matter how many homeless people die in the street from hunger tonight, right? I know it’s kind of jumping the shark, but your rationale would call America “not that bad” if slavery were still allowed nationally but forbidden, in some states, right?

We should be judged by what those that have allow to happen to those that have not. Take a step back and look at the bigger picture.