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 “absolutely” one way or the other is telling you an opinion, not a fact.

Well feel free to drop a DM to me directly when you get it up and running and I’ll give it a look, for sure.

I would probably watch a youtube channel that focused more on how to improvise in cooking than how to follow a recipe, along with pointing out various useful techniques and pitfalls to avoid.

Hell, this might actually already exist. I confess I’ve never really looked.

I subscribed to releases! Good work so far!

Hey, I was up front about my data (or lack thereof) and we’re not talking about climate change or string theory, we’re talking about fast food delivery driver’s onboarding.

“The Internet” would just state it like a fact.

I’m pretty sure Tasker can make non-dismissible notifications.

Though, if a notification will actually stop you from drunk dialing, you could always change your wallpaper to something like “Don’t drunk dial”.

Are you saying that traditional food delivery drivers get trained specifically not to hit on people when they deliver food? I don’t have any data but I feel like that’s not really a thing. Maybe my concept of the training a food delivery driver gets is way off the mark?

I’m also pretty sure that it’s easier to give a bad review that others will see via one of these food delivery apps than it is if you go directly to the business.

I think we all agree that this is inappropriate and should not be happening, I just don’t see how it doesn’t apply at least equally to traditional delivery drivers.

I don’t understand. Surely they have foods that are vegan besides bread and water, right? Like, some vegetable being served or something?

If curious if “affordable housing” has an actual definition? Like is there some formula that we could use?

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.

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”.