My entire premise hinges on the fact that these papers agree with me.

I work with AI every day at my job. My buddy is a literal AI researcher and we hobby-build together too.

I’m not concerned with what you think is “objective truth” when you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Yes this is an argument in my favor, you just don’t understand AI/LLMs enough to know why.

That’s certainly an opinion you have

I don’t care if he likes to be peed on or whatever, but seriously try to imagine saying this to someone

she told me how he kept going on about how he liked her ‘pert nipples’,” she testified.

the people stealing data

No one is doing this

Output doesn’t matter since it’s pretty well settled it’s not derivative work

Cool, discussion over.

I agree. For instance, it should be secured in law that you can train AI on anything, to avoid frivolous discussions like this.

Output is what should be moderated by law.

If it’s not a violation of copyright then this is a non-issue. You don’t need permission to read books.

at their expense

How?

Why do you have free reign to do the same?

AIs don’t learn as a human would, and comparisons can’t be made between the learning processes.

I think you’re going to have a hard time proving a financial distinction between them

There’s a third solution you’re overlooking.

3: OpenAI (or other) wins a judgment that AI content is not inherently a violation of copyright regardless of materials it is trained upon.

This current melt is also due to localized factors, like the El Nino event we are going through, making the climate-change-induced ice reduction greatly exacerbated. Ice on the Great Lakes has been declining for 50 years.

Just as no Congressperson should be bringing in snow alls to refute climate change, we should also keep in mind that weather and climate are vastly different things.

Remember to bring this up in a couple years when Republicans are talking about how the ice is back so climate change isn’t real.

In reality, I of course see companies raising the barrier to entry through vertical integration and regulatory capture, among other things.

This article is about this happening less because it isn’t profitable.

This is not what “consumer choice” means in this article, and per the article, the consolidation of retail choice at major retailers carves a spot for smaller businesses to offer the variety you’re looking for.

In a sense, this is a damper on the thing you don’t want - it’s a slight nullification of the “Wal-Mart effect”

The answer is less populism, not more.

Almost none of the arrests have ended up in convictions.

The data does not bear this out

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/30-months-jan-6-attack-capitol

Shoplifting is trending up, it’s just not the moral panic Republicans made it out to be.

https://capitaloneshopping.com/research/shoplifting-statistics/

It’s also not generally driven by poor people trying to survive

Shoplifting losses grew 19.4% year-over-year; as a share of retail sales dollars, losses to theft increased 10.5%.

58% of organized retail crime is cargo theft.

So yeah dude is pretty much spot on. Check out the lists of what is typically stolen - things that are easily resold, and shit teens like (because teens steal a lot for a variety of reasons). Essentials don’t make the list anywhere

What is ironic is that the civil war could have been avoided by the South just realizing they’re wrong, and letting slavery be banned. Instead they freaked out and attacked US military installations while declaring secession.

So he’s right, but not in a way any conservative would want to hear.

The referendum required a simple majority to pass, and it did indeed pass, bringing relief to children’s health advocates and the public health community. Consequently, SB 793 became effective on January 1, 2023. Violation of the law will result in a $250 fine per infraction and subject the retailer to any local regulations within their jurisdiction that may be more stringent than the state law.

This was passed via referendum, though, so describing it as just a revenue thing handled by the state without voter input is a bit misleading.

The reason we haven’t had a redo of the French revolution, despite having a more fucked up tax system and higher economic disparities, is because the massively rich wised up. They don’t go in public very much.

That’s not why. It’s because of 2 things.

1: the average person doesn’t agree with you about murdering a bunch of people

2: mob rule is stupid and the French revolution gave rise to a literal emperor.