Once you AI has the ability to make "movies" then everyone will have the chance to make their own, something few people have the ability to do now. Isn't that gain much higher than a catering company closing?
I know Canada doesn't do the whole "free speech" thing, but damn. Jail for "unapproved writings" seems like way too much power for the government to have.
Most of this stems from a misunderstand of how LLM work.
The original work is not stored anywhere. No copy of it has been made. Just tons and tons of statistics used to inform models.
Since there is no copy there is no violation of copyright. Again, no copy of the book is getting made. The content of the books is not stored "verbatim". The book is not copied. I don't know how many other ways to put this.
Summarizing a book also does not require one to have "read" it, contrary to the complaint. I never read "The DaVinci Code", but I can give a summary of it.
With assertions in the complaint being clearly false it's hard to take it seriously and it'll get chucked the first time a judge has to deal with it.
Maybe Silverman would have a point if it were standard practice to pay royalties to people you get inspiration from. But she doesn't pay everyone who wrote anything she read, said anything she heard, or other comedians who influenced her. So why should someone influenced by her pay?
If I read 100,000 books how do you determine "which one" I got inspiration from? Same situation here.
I didn't slander shit. I posted two facts. Facts can't be slander. You know I'm right, and you're perfectly capable of using a search engine so don't even bother going that route, I'm not here to teach you.
The hilarious part is how many of the Musk haters were once Musk fan boys. Whatever opinion the media tells them to have. But since hating Musk is the only "acceptable" position to have they have to down vote everything else.
I was hoping the political stupidity would be turned down here, instead they've turned it up to 11.
What law do you propose, that didn’t already exist, wouldn’t violate the Bill of Rights, and wouldn’t cause a civil war, and would actually be enforceable?
Most of the time I either get answers that include laws that already exist that the government just doesn’t enforce, or a “fuck the constitution, let’s have a civil war!” (And not just "fuck the 2nd", but most of the bill of rights.)
For example the army is supposed to report people discharged dishonorably to the NCIS. They don’t.
The ATF is supposed to follow up when a banned individual tries to buy a gun. They don’t.
The ATF is supposed to check on people when gun dealers report them for attempted straw purchases. They don’t.
Many "juveniles" with long, violent histories, don't get added (TeH sChOol tO PrISon PipElInE) and so are able to buy them.
Know someone who has illegal weapons? Call the police and see what they do. Here’s a hint: nothing
If the rules we have were enforced very few of these shootings would happen. Passing another law and not enforcing it isn't going to help.
So, does anyone have one?
EDIT: Downvotes and no responses. You want to "do something about this"? Tell me what that is!
Red counties, which are overwhelmingly Republican, tend to report higher charitable contributions than Democratic-dominated blue counties, according to a new study on giving, although giving in blue counties is often bolstered by a combination of charitable donations and higher taxes.
Maybe they come out more or less even, I don't know. But to say conservatives are "me me me" and liberals are "we we we" is just ignorant and doesn't jive with the facts.
I a little bit of hope that you'll read this and change the conservative strawman you have in your head just a little bit. You can't engage in honest conversation when you do that.
The problem is that you don't understand conservative viewpoints. Not that you disagree, that you don't understand.
Here's a short reading list, with liberal authors, about it:
"The Moral Roots of Ideology" by Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham (2007):
This study explores the moral foundations theory and suggests that liberals and conservatives tend to prioritize different moral values, leading to divergent political ideologies. Understanding these underlying moral foundations can contribute to a better understanding of political differences.
"The Ideological Animal" by John T. Jost, Christopher M. Federico, and Jaime L. Napier (2009)
This article discusses the psychological underpinnings of political ideology and explores factors that influence individuals' understanding of opposing viewpoints, such as openness to experience, cognitive flexibility, and exposure to diverse perspectives.
"Beyond Ideology: Predicting Political Bias and Attitude Extremity from Personal Need for Structure" by John T. Jost, Jack Glaser, Arie W. Kruglanski, and Frank J. Sulloway (2003):
This study examines the role of psychological factors, such as the need for structure and certainty, in shaping political bias and the ability to understand opposing views.
Brave ads are opt-in.
At some point you opted-in.
If you don't like it, then next time opt-out now or don't opt-in next time.