backgroundcow @ backgroundcow @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

63

Joined

2 yr. ago

People losing media this way should sue, with the argument that it was presented to end users as a "sale", and it is not sufficient to merely compensate someone with the purchase price to undo a sale. Companies "selling" digital products should be forced to write agreements that allow them to redistribute content indefinitely.

It's because the licence holder of the movie decided Amazon can't show it anymore. Perhaps they were asking Amazon to pay a high fee and it wants worth it.

I get that this is what the license holder wants. But, why can't we just put into law that a license is not needed for a company to host, retransmit and play copyrighted media on behalf of a user once the license holder has been compensated as agreed for a sale?

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." // Carl Sagan.

How the f**k do we have functional AI that speaks like a human and solves general problems on the level of a university student, but somehow household chores are still done with tech that was invented 50-100 years ago?! Why isn't there just a hole in my kitchen counter where I can dump dirty dinnerware, pots, pans; the machine sorts it out, washes it, and returns it to the cupboard? Why doesn't my washing machine sort by color, wash, dry, fold, and stack my clothes? Why do I still have to clean surfaces in my house by manually rubbing a wet sponge at them for hours?

I'll tell you what I think: inequality. Women did house chores, men invented shit that was fun and useful to them. Maybe as the world moves, hopefully, toward more equality we will find that people who shares their time between chores and inventing stuff will start to actually tackle the problem of simplifying boring chores.

There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

A few things:

• Unity is still bleeding money. They have a product that could be the basis for a reasonably profitable company, but spending billions on a microtransaction company means it is not sufficient for their current leadership. It doesn't seem wise to build your bussniess on the product of a company whose bussniess plan you fundamentally disagree with.
• It would be the best for the long term health of bussniess-to-bussnies services if we as a community manages to send the message that it doesn't matter what any contract says - just trying to introduce retroactive fees is unforgivable and a death sentence to the company that tries it.

AND add a clause to the TOS banning retroactive updates of TOS to existing games.

https://youtu.be/jI2zxBAIepI

I understand LLaMA and some other models come with instructions that say that they cannot be used commercially. But, unless the creators can show that you have formally accepted a license agreement to that effect, on what legal grounds can that be enforceable?

If we look at the direction US law is moving, it seems the current legal theory is that AI generated works fall in the public domain. That means restricting their use commercially should be impossible regardless of other circumstances - public domain means that anyone can use them for anything. (But it also means that your commercial use isn't protected from others likewise using the exact same output).

If we instead look at what possible legal grounds restrictions on the output of these models could be based on if you didn't agree to a license agreement to access the model. Copyright don't restrict use, it restricts redistribution. The creators of LLMs cannot reasonably take the position that output created from their models is a derivative work of the model, when their model itself is created from copyrighted works, many of which they have no right to redistribute. The whole basis of LLMs rest on that "training data" -> "model" produces a model that isn't encumbered by the copyright of the training data. How can one take that position and simultaneously belive "model" -> "inferred output" produces copyright encumbered output? That would be a fundamentally inconsistent view.

(Note: the above is not legal advice, only free-form discussion.)

While a broad concept, in the context of your question, science is a metod to derive knowledge from observations.

Alternatives to the scientific method is to guess or to obtain knowledge from others. (Most other ways I can come up with, e.g. "religion" can still be sorted under these two.)

Obtaining knowledge from others is great, but may not always be available, and the quality of the knowledge derived this way depends on the reliability of the source.

For the other alternative, every sensible metric shows how science is a better method than guessing to derive knowledge.

Pants

But, "speedy" relative to what? Relative to the walls of the room your are inside? What if you are in a falling elevator? Relative to the rotating surface of the earth? To the center of the solar system? "Relative to the portal" is the only answer to that question that makes sense.

I was incredibly confused why everyone seemed to think the YouTube channel with fun physics videos was the scum of the earth, until I realized they are named Veritasium and not Veritas.

How can it not be b? Every situation in the Portal games is already exactly like this, but with the portal fixed to a slab that moves with the rotation of the Earth, whereas in the drawing the portal moves as the sum of earth rotation + the movement of the train.

Treating the question seriously, I think it is easy to think the one person is the right choice, because it just seems like less of a mess to deal with. However, I also think the end result is that you will never feel safe in your home again. You will always second guess if every squeak you hear is yet another person who somehow have made it into your house. This is the path towards slowly descending into madness.

AutoNomous Ultra inStinct ram

Cortana is/was by far the best name of the digital assistants - probably because it was created by sci-fi story writers rather than a marketing department. They should just have upgraded her with the latest AI tech and trained her to show the same kind of sassy personality as in the games and it would have been perfect.

Who in their right mind thinks "Bing copilot" is a better name? It makes me picture something like the blow-up autopilot from Airplane!

I like calling it "x-twitter", as it is short and makes sense when reading it out.

The replacement for "this is retarded" I've started to use is ~ "I guess someone had to leave early for the weekend. 'Good enough, let's ship this and go home.'" with me gesturing like Khaby Lame at, e.g., obviously broken email validation field.

It isn't quite as snappy, but at least my disappointment tend to come across.

No technology actually works, it is all a magical illusion. You may think a steam engine works with heated water and pressure; a computer with circuits and electrons; etc.; well, that is all gobbledygook, and what actually makes any of these things do things that occasionally seem useful is nothing but powerful illusion magic. If the assembly of mages decide to dispell the illusion, we'll be back in the middle ages. For one thing, it seems they never really got the illusion to work quite right for printers.