How about we abolish the idea of ethnostates at all and a policy of reparation amd reform is put into place as an actually democratic state is created. And Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, and Netanyahu are schekht. They aren’t kosher regardless of ritual, but maybe it’ll purify them at least a little bit.
This is what they should be doing to anyone who works in immigration enforcement as well. Like, I get that it’s likely to be successfully challenged but so fucking what, let it trickle through the court while states rip back from DHS what the admin has illegally refused to disburse to them in grants and other funding.
Effectively China is the only major market where AI generated outputs are granted copyright. And even then, it’s a hard maybe. This makes zero sense to me as a business move.
I could honestly use a setup playing the role of personal assistant so I don’t over schedule and stretch myself too thin on stuff. A few of my friends have created very effective setups for just that, but I have lacked the bandwidth to figure out how to replicate for quite a while now…because of aforementioned need for a scheduling helper. :(
I mean, capitalism does have to do with resource allocation, or rather allocative power. It’s defining feature is that allocative power is used in service to grow the allocative power of those whose allocative power was used to allocate resources in the enterprise under consideration. This doesn’t require a free market whatsoever, and that’s why things like state capitalism exist. The other corollary to this is that it inevitably tends towards constricted markets as allocative power naturally consolidates among fewer and fewer holders as time goes on.
Capitalism and free markets are not the same thing, nor is either particularly necessary to the other.
Apple has a trademark in computing technologies because apples are not typically associated with computers. GPT, as a technical term related to the model and architecture, is pretty natural associated with ML products, so it really should never get a trademark grant for being merely descriptive.
Removed by mod
Nah, you gotta understand how fucking stupid, selfish, and god damned myopic our public in the aggregate is here. A completely mismanaged war of bald aggression that resulted in the double tap murder of 150 school children isn’t sufficient to rile them–but paying 50 cents more a gallon at the pump and they’ll declare a motherfucking fatwa.
Jfc, it’s so unfortunate his stroke was caught in time to save his Phineas Gage ass.
You are advocating for the exact same crimes being inflicted on the Palestinian people. Collective indiscriminate “punishment” is abhorrent no matter what.
Just noticed your reply and want to correct this. Anyhropic settled, the 1.5bil was not a judgment against them. Specifically, this covered the literal pirating of the training corpus. It had absolutely nothing to do with the way training on the data handled the training data–they literally torrented an enormous portion of their training corpus.
Anthropoc DID try to argue that because they used the pirated material for training a model, it was fair use. The judge correctly decided that doesn’t make any fucking sense. Again, this is not about the models encoding data, it is literally just about the fact that these silly fucks torrented vast portions of their training corpus like college students building a porn library on college broadband.
Anthropic pirating books for their training corpus resulted in the biggest copyright settlement in history–well over a billion. That is still being quibbled over i believe, but they settled because they were likely to pay out more if the case went forward. So I’m not really sure where you’re coming from that infringement via torrenting does not result in monstrously large liability.
Pre-war Zionism was extremely secular. Political Zionism has been a largely secular/ethnic movement since its inception in the 19th century.
This is wildly wrong in so many ways.
Copyright is an intellectual property right, firmly grounded in property law doctrine–you are probably thinking of trademark, which is rooted in consumer protection law, or likeness rights which have their roots in privacy law.
The copyrightability of AI generated content gets to where the nexus of creativity happens. Effectively, image generators (modern ones–i actually don’t think DABUS is a diffusion model) are operated like a commissioned work. The user gives detailed instruction on par with what you might see in a commissioned work, and the creative event occurs when the “contractor” interprets that into the work. The copyright may be assigned or it may be licensed, in any case, the initial copyright holder is the contractor–or in our case, the model. Now, it is well established that only humans can have sua sponte property rights, including intellectual property right. Those can be assigned, licensed, etc., but they must first inher to a human and so an AI system literally has no copyright to assign, were it even able to engage in a contractual agreement to transfer said rights. As a result, no, there is no copyright in AI generated content and without a significant change in law there is unlikely to ever be any.
If he had sought to register the copyright under purely his own name, he would have been committing a fraud on the copyright office. This wasn’t explicitly established at the time of his suit, but it has been very explicitly the case now for over a year. When registering copyright you must declare any AI-generated components. Failure, or refusal, to do so constitutes a fraud on the office and such fraud is sanctionable up to revoking the copyright in the work in its entirety, even if the AI-gen component was only partial. This is really important to note with software copyright and the kind of litigation we’re likely to see wrt piracy in the future (i.e., defendant claims plaintiffs did not declare vibe coded components and thus committed a fraud on the office and should be sanctioned with full revocation of the right as a signal to other would-be claimants).
I…don’t think you are understanding the point of my example. It’s fine, but maybe let it roll around in your head a bit until something clicks.
I would say using judeosupremacist or judeofascist is a fine way to describe Zionism. After all, yiddish newspapers in the 20s often compared it to “Hitlerism”. But that is unrelated to the fact that “goy” is itself a completely neutral word simply denoting non-Jewish. You trying to turn a common and mundane word into a secret word to mean some sort of Zionism is not just fucking stupid, it’s dangerous.
A bunch of Arabic schools are calling their students taliban. Obviously they’re islamofascist. Or maybe languages have words for things you poorly educated fuckwit.
Meanwhile, Republicans are actively trying to kill you. Both sidesism only makes sense when both are equivalent threats, which is clearly not the fucking case.
The Palestinian solidarity movements in the west are full of Jewish folks. Fuck off.