Show newer

@cholling @mattcjordan @carnage4life Pretty sure the laws about spam don't actually have a quantity requirement.

Also, "express goal of replacing them" is pretty funny. That's like claiming that McDonalds is expressly trying to put high-end steakhouses out of business.

@lauren Tbf, I've used some excel spreadsheets that were pretty "black box" too.
But more importantly, the transparency of an algorithm has no bearing on the liability for speech resulting from its use. Nearly every video game is a black box. Should the publishers therefore become liable for user content (like online voice chat) as a result?

@lauren Yeah, and a law should be passed making Microsoft fully responsible for any and all content created with Microsoft Excel. Period. No exceptions.

@cholling @mattcjordan @carnage4life

> Because a human artist doesn't reproduce works they "trained" on verbatim

Except, yes, they can, and often do. There has historically been an entire industry dedicated to this.

> humans can't get away with "building upon others" if the results are too similar to the original

Which is clearly true of AIs as well, since they keep tweaking the algorithms to avoid that and produce more unique outputs.

> hundreds of ways generative AI differs from human thought

Of course it's not the exact same, but from a legal perspective, I don't see enough of a difference to require separate rules. I also don't see enough of a difference to classify only one of the two as "theft". Seems that label would apply equally to both or neither.

@mattcjordan @carnage4life How can you consider generative AI to be a thief, but not the artists themselves, who have been building their own work upon other art for centuries?

Commercial artists today remind me of travel agents in the early 2000s. You used to have to talk to human on the phone or in-person to book trips. They were knowledgeable about destinations and rates. Today you Google and use Expedia.

Generative AI is going to do the same to art.

A key difference is that travel agents weren’t on social media talking about how technology had stolen their jobs. It did and no one wants to go back to the old ways for booking a trip or getting custom art made.

This is *terrible.* Stanford buckles under to Jim Jordan & litigation, dismantling the Stanford Internet Observatory (retreating to safe subjects like child porn). Alex Stamos & Renee DiResta, both gone, call this "a quintessential example of the weaponization of government." h/t Casey Newton
platformer.news/stanford-inter

Love to see this. You defraud the government to steal tax money from all of us? You pay it back 5 times over.

Now if only we could make these rules apply to the billionaires too.

aopa.org/news-and-media/all-ne

Iowa police chief uses town money to purchase 90 machine guns for his department of two (2) officers. Then he sells them through his gun store at an 800% markup and pockets the profits.

iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/0

@dragonfrog @nus@mstdn.social If I recall correctly, an FFL has an obligation to reject the purchase if they have probable cause to suspect the customer is not legally permitted to buy the gun. Including, but not limited to, failing their background check. Those guys take those rules seriously, because the ATF isn't afraid to pull their license.

@nus@mstdn.social @dragonfrog And that part of the law needs to be changed; you won't find me defending it.

I would also love to see a carve-out for recovery (i.e. the cops will confiscate and store your guns when you go into rehab, but once you've completed the program, they give them back).

@dragonfrog @nus@mstdn.social If they manage to buy the gun despite being an addict? Yeah. Same as how you'll spend more time in jail if you T-bone another car while drunk than while sober.

I guess it does have some preventative effect though... in that it provides a small barrier at an FFL to allow a dealer to reject a customer with a history of drug abuse or who appears to be actively strung-out. And it also allows relatives of the person to report that they're addicted and own a gun to authorities *before* they cause harm.

@dragonfrog @nus@mstdn.social If you harm or murder someone while under the influence of drugs, then you're long past the point of just needing addiction treatment.

Criminal laws are about enforcing punishments for crime after it's been committed, not preventing or reducing crime. There are other programs for that.

@luis_in_brief What frustration? AI just saved me like 3 hours of tedious work last night.

I'd be much more frustrated without it.

@dragonfrog @nus@mstdn.social Right, it basically just provides an enforcement mechanism for after-the-fact, but it's a federal crime, so you still don't want to be charged with it.

@dragonfrog @nus@mstdn.social Not the way it's currently implemented. You have to self-report on the background check when you buy a gun. If you're actively addicted to a substance, you shouldn't be buying guns. If you own a gun already, then there's nothing preventing you from seeking help.

Would it be too cheeky to add an operator overload so I can write the following code?

Distance3 dist = [...];
Velocity3 vel = dist / TimeSpan.FromHours(1);

Pretty sure at this point that my dog is a better judge of human body language than me, an actual human being.

There are two possible reasons that people of Italian heritage could never really be vampires:

1) The sheer amount of garlic in our blood makes us unpalatable in the first place.

2) We'd rather drive a stake into our own hearts than live on such a bland, garlic-free, diet for all eternity.

Show older
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.