admiralteal @ admiralteal @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

795

Joined

2 yr. ago

A classic: The Life and Times of a Holodeck Janitor

If you're curious, it is because wagons are classified as passenger vehicles and SUVs are classified as light trucks. Wagons are held to higher emissions/safety standards than SUVs, making them less profitable to produce in the US. So most automakers steer clear. They don't want to accidentally compete with their own most profitable products by selling a less profitable one that better-matches what consumers need.

Also fuck Tesla.

A big part of this is also that the auto industry is increasingly steering people to buy big, expensive, profitable trucks over smaller, saner, more reasonable vehicles (that they earn less profit on).

It's not just that consumers "want" these vehicles. Consumers are being pushed to want them.

There's a reason Kei-style trucks basically do not exist in the US -- because they're cheap and useful and the automakers thus dare not allow them.

That's kind of the story, though.

The modern GOP has such intense, strict purity tests that no one can satisfy them anymore. Pointing out an uncontroversial fact about the real world -- for example, that his black son is going to face more challenges than his white son because of unfairness built into society -- is enough to potentially crucify him even when he's otherwise a extremist.

Just another clear indication of the fascism that is cornerstone to their movement.

Consumers literally do not have a choice to buy the services the article was discussing -- apple's media streamers -- from someone else. Apple monopolizes that content.

RTFA. It is not about phones.

And even for phones, to get a functionally-acceptable product, your choice is one of maybe 5 manufacturers who all tacitly collude to keep prices up and keep unprofitable consumer choices far, far away.

Yeah, I encourage this wholeheartedly.

Except... the article still wasn't about phones, or any device/OS. Just more people who didn't read it.

You should read the article because this isn't about phone prices. It's about stuff that you actually can only buy from them.

We're backsliding from a world where you could have just one or two streaming platforms and basically get access to everything to one that's even worse than old cable packages.

Consumers are not dumb, they're just nearly powerless.

Notably because Cohen's testimony didn't even prove what Trump was claiming it proved.

The (R) is a hint. No one sincerely concerned with the wellbeing of the nation would be willing to have that next to their name in this day and age.

What are you claiming is untrue about what I said? The part where I directly quoted the statute, or something else? Fuck off with this "not remotely true" bullshit.

I mentioned the counter notification process. Extensively. It's a bad process.

There IS an obligation for the host to do something with the counter-notification, by the way. Their liability waiver for damages goes away if they do not participate in the process. But same as other parts, it puts the legal onus on the victim, meaning little guys get fucked.

The DMCA is so fucking contradictory about these subjects too. For example, per the DMCA, a party that misrepresents themselves in a takedown claim:

shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

This should mean you can sue the person for absolutely every bit of damage you suffered + whatever legal costs you encouraged in the process when you are delivered an illegitimate takedown. Reality is though, when regulatory duty is foisted onto private actors like this, that's just making it harder to get access to your rights.

The DMCA limits liability for platforms that host infringing content so long as the platform does not have knowledge the content infringes... but it provides NO guidance for how the platform should ascertain that an infringement claim is legitimate -- and waives their liability for making an erroneous determination.

It mandates a counter-notification process, but in this process the content will stay down for 10-14 days -- which in the world of social media can be an absolute death sentence. In no small part because the service provider's own algorithms will now bury that content when it is restored. And of course, DMCA has zilcho recourse for algorithmic burying (of course the writers weren't even aware of these potential effects).

And you cannot have an anonymous of pseudonymous counter-notification. Must be your full name, address, and phone number on it. Which will theoretically get handed off to the person that put in the fake claim against you as part of the process! Fucking madness! I don't know if this is enforced as written, but as written this is what it says.

There's probably a lot more to be said, but christ it is a poorly written law. And this is all from Section 512, which is often viewed as the only "good part" of the DMCA.

Exactly. Which is how we know that calling what it does inherently creative/novel is absurd and must be wrong. Glad you came around.

Even if I grant your premise that their produce is novel -- I don't, that is fundamentally not how they work -- the copyright would be held by the bot in that case, not the person who used it.

No more than a person who commissions a painting has copyright for the work. That's not how creativity, LLMs, nor copyright law works.

I think there's a lot of Dunning–Kruger here.

The simple fact is that they aren’t able to reproduce their exact training data so no, they aren’t storing it in a highly compressed form.

See: jpeg analogy. You've described here lossy compression not something that is categorically different than compression. Perhaps the AI models are VERY lossy. But that doesn't mean it is original or creative.

But the reality is, we largely do not know how these chatbots work. They are black boxes even to the researchers themselves. That's just how neural networks are. But the thing I know is they are not themselves creative. All they can do is follow weights to reproduce the things human classifiers evaluated as subjectively "good" over the things they subjectively evaluated as "bad". All the creativity happened in the training process -- the inputs and the testing. All of the apparent creativity outputted is a product of the humans involved in training and testing the model, not the model itself. The actual creative force is somewhere far away.

That claim doesn't prove your premise. I get that it feels clever, but it isn't.

Just because they're very good at reproducing information from highly pared down and compressed forms does not mean they are not reproducing information. If that were true, you wouldn't be able to enforce copyright on a jpeg photo of a painting.

Does Switzerland even have meaningful immigration to be concerned with banning it?

Isn't this the country where communities vote on their neighbors' citizenship applications?