I can't imagine how a representative democracy would operate otherwise. In representative democracies you're picking some person to make decisions on your behalf, and that person is different from you so some of their decisions are not going be the ones you would have made if you were in their place.
You may be wanting direct democracy, in which you would personally get to vote on the government's actions. Your "representative" would be perfect in that case because your representative would be you. But since you would only represent yourself, that's not what would normally be called "representative democracy."
Criticize Biden all you like, but if you advocate not voting for him in the Presidential election then you are a Trump supporter.
Unless something unexpected happens in the Democratic primaries those are going to be the only two choices the Americans have. And Trump is not going to be better for the Palestinians.
That just makes my point stronger, though. The basic gist of what I was saying is that even if there is a statistical clustering of data into two groups that seem correlated with some category, that doesn't mean that you can absolutely rely on that data to classify people into those categories.
No, we're describing a human endeavour. If the promotional flyers had been made by outsourcing it to Fiverr and they came back wonky it would have been the same basic problem. They outsourced this and then ether didn't have the resources or interest in checking the work that came back.
Famously, "50 Shades of Grey" started out as a Twilight fanfic. The author later pulled out all of the Twilight-related stuff and then it was free and clear to publish as their own work. Given how much money 50 Shades raked in I would imagine there's been some legal scrutiny there from various sides.
It's true, go ahead and read the ToS. It only grants a license to Reddit to use your content. It explicitly says:
You retain any ownership rights you have in Your Content, but you grant Reddit the following license to use that Content:
And then goes on to enumerate what you're licensing them to do with it. There's also a section titled "Changes to these Terms" about how they can change the ToS going forward.
I'd be curious what the "cutoff" date is for eligibility for this. It could be that they generated the list of accounts they'd be sending this offer to some time ago, and OP deleted his account after that point.
I'm a big fan of fanfic, I support it and consider it a serious literary genre. It's basically the folklore of our modern times. I'm also not a fan of how extensive and restrictive copyright protection has become.
That said, I do find it amusingly ironic when fanfic authors get in a big huff about their copyright being violated.
Indeed, this is a common misunderstanding of the status of fanworks. Most fanfics likely violate the copyright of the IP they're based on, but that doesn't mean that they aren't themselves original copyrighted works. The original IP's rightsholders can't simply claim the fanfic's copyright for themselves. It likely means that each party would need the other party's permission to make legal copies of the fanfic.
This is why most studios or authors will refuse to even read unsolicited ideas that are sent to them, they don't want to end up in a bind if someone sends them a fanfic that's got elements in it that they already intended to use in future books or episodes and then sues them for "stealing" their work.
This article is from June 12, 2023. That's practically stone-aged as far as AI technology has been progressing.
The paper it's based on used a very simplistic approach, training AIs purely on the outputs of its previous "generation." Turns out that's not a realistic real-world scenario, though. In reality AIs can be trained on a mixture of human-generated and AI-generated content and it can actually turn out better than training on human-generated content alone. AI-generated content can be curated and custom-made to be better suited to training, and the human-generated stuff adds back in the edge cases that might disappear when doing repeated training generations.
A T-800 tried to kill John Connor. A T-800 also tried to protect John Connor. It's all down to what the people programming it decide it should be aimed at.
AI vision systems are already better than humans at distinguishing between a gun and a camera or other gun-like-but-not-a-gun object, so I for one am cautiously optimistic about this sort of thing. People need to bear in mind that humans aren't the greatest things to be putting in charge of targeting decisions either.
No problem. I'm not a lawyer myself, mind you, but I've encountered issues like these enough times over the years that I feel I've got a pretty good layman's grasp. Plus I've actually read some of these ToSes and considered them from the perspective of the company running the site, which I suspect most people arguing about this stuff haven't actually done.
I wish the Fediverse sites running without rigorous ToSes well, of course, but I suspect failing to establish clear rights to use the content people post on them is likely to end up biting them in the long run. At least the bigger ones. Hobby-level websites get away with a lot because they don't have significant money on the line.
Are there any laws against it where? You need to specify a jurisdiction.
My main reaction would be that whoever is paying for that data is a fool. It's available for free.