primbin

I disagree with your interpretation of how an AI works, but I think the way that AI works is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion in the first place. I think your argument stands completely the same regardless. Even if AI worked much like a human mind and was very intelligent and creative, I would still say that usage of an idea by AI without the consent of the original artist is fundamentally exploitative.

You can easily train an AI (with next to no human labor) to launder an artist's works, by using the artist's own works as reference. There's no human input or hard work involved, which is a factor in what dictates whether a work is transformative. I'd argue that if you can put a work into a machine, type in a prompt, and get a new work out, then you still haven't really transformed it. No matter how creative or novel the work is, the reality is that no human really put any effort into it, and it was built off the backs of unpaid and uncredited artists.

You could probably make an argument for being able to sell works made by an AI trained only on the public domain, but it still should not be copyrightable IMO, cause it's not a human creation.

TL;DR - No matter how creative an AI is, its works should not be considered transformative in a copyright sense, as no human did the transformation.

Out of curiosity, I went ahead and read the full text of the bill. After reading it, I'm pretty sure this is the controversial part:

SEC. 3. DUTY OF CARE. (a) Prevention Of Harm To Minors.—A covered platform shall act in the best interests of a user that the platform knows or reasonably should know is a minor by taking reasonable measures in its design and operation of products and services to prevent and mitigate the following:

(1) Consistent with evidence-informed medical information, the following mental health disorders: anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and suicidal behaviors.

The sorts of actions that a platform would be expected to take aren't specified anywhere, as far as I can tell, nor is the scope of what the platform would be expected to moderate. Does "operation of products and services" include the recommender systems? If so, I could see someone using this language to argue that showing LGBTQ content to children promotes mental health disorders, and so it shouldn't be recommended to them. They'd still be able to see it if they searched for it, but I don't think that makes it any better.

Also, in section 9, they talked about forming a committee to investigate the practicality of building age verification into hardware and/or the operating system of consumer devices. That seems like an invasion of privacy.

Reading through the rest of it, though, a lot of it did seem reasonable. For example, it would make it so that sites would have to put children on safe default options. That includes things like having their personal information be private, turning off addictive features designed to maximize engagement, and allowing kids to opt out of personalized recommendations. Those would be good changes, in my opinion.

If it wasn't for those couple of sections, the bill would probably be fine, so maybe that's why it's got bipartisan support. But right now, the bad seems like it outweighs the good, so we should probably start calling our lawmakers if the bill continues to gain traction.

apologies for the wall of text, just wanted to get to the bottom of it for myself. you can read the full text here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1409/text

Idk, after having been in the crypto space in the past, I'm still pretty tempted to call it almost universally a scam.

Regardless of the environmental impacts (which has been solved by some blockchains, like you said), I just think it exposes users to a completely unacceptable amount of risk for very little gain.

You're required to be in complete charge of your own data security, and if your private key is stolen, you lose your life savings with no recourse. If you make a minor slip up and give permission to the wrong website, you'll lose everything in your hot wallet. If there's an error in a smart contract you use (which has happened many times), then all the money you've given to it could be taken from under your nose. You can't even, like, refund transactions -- there's no consumer protections at all.

But like, to what end? What's the actual benefit of using crypto? Sure, you can make anonymous transactions with XMR, that's a tangible use case. But what's the actual benefit to using something like Ethereum?

One thing to note, though, is that honey bees are likely a factor in declining native insect populations. Their ability to outcompete native species results in a direct decline in the populations and effectiveness of native pollinators in areas nearby where beekeeping is practiced.

I don't know much about hfcs production, though, so I'll have to look into that.

Sources: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2016.1641

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-41271-5

I am one of those people who's pretty concerned about AI, but not cause of the singularity thing. (the singularity hypothesis seems kinda silly to me)

I'm mostly concerned about the stuff that billionaires are gonna do with AI to screw us over, and the ways that it'll be used as a political tool, like to spread misinformation and such.

I didn't know that about the Texas one. Those "health warnings" are pretty bad.

I'm all for educating children about sex, and I'm also sympathetic to the plight of data privacy.

However, I also feel like the internet right now is a pretty bad place for minors. Like, there's so much porn and other harmful content that's so easily accessible, to the point that it's easy to find yourself stumbling into it on complete accident. And with the speed that the internet evolves, it seems pretty unreasonable to me to just kinda expect parents just to be able to fully keep up with it.

I don't think I support this law in particular, but I also don't know what could possibly be done to any real effect.

Of course kids would still try to access porn, there's always ways around walls on the internet. Just like how banning guns wouldn't prevent everyone from accessing guns, and banning sale of alcohol to minors doesn't make minors stop getting drunk.

In that sense, I do suspect that if there were more boundaries to accessing porn, children would watch it less, and would maybe be less likely to be exposed to it without their consent.

The alt-right is not right about this. The upper class does not want to make you eat bugs, nor does the left.

I don't really think this is fundamentally different from how it's always been. Food and drink has always had branding, and I don't see how gay water is truly that much different from any other branding. The only difference I see is that republicans won't stop complaining about it