As an able-bodied neurotypical 30-something straight white cis male with a suburban middle class upbringing and an office job, I don’t participate in identity politics.

It’s not even piracy though. I never saw anyone torrent Windows_XP_Home_Cracked.iso and go “Hey guys, check out this operating system I made!”

Pirating Windows for your own personal, private use, which will never directly make you a single dollar: HIGHLY ILLEGAL

Scraping your creative works so they can make billions by selling automated processes that compete against your work: Perfectly fine and normal!

Comments here: “Yeah right, I’ll believe it when they explain how.”

Article: literally has a section explaining how

Edit:

Replies: “Yeah, but that’s just a summary. I’ll believe it when they explain in full detail.”

Article: literally has a link to the detailed explanation

Interacting with people whose tone doesn’t match their words may induce anxiety as well.

Have they actually proven this is a good idea, or is this a “so preoccupied with whether or not they could” scenario?

So, literally the story of the actual Luddites. Or what they attempted to do before capitalists poured a few hundred bullets into them.

Dude gave up his entire life to send a warning to as many people as possible. You think he’s gonna not post further warnings on Twitter?

It doesn’t seem like the ruling says copyright concerns justify overriding a right to anonymity under GDPR, but that the right to anonymity doesn’t exist in the first place.

I think that’s probably a better place to be, because it means they can legislate a right to anonymity.

As a contractor, your client isn’t allowed to dictate your work methods. It’s one of the things the IRS looks at when identifying misclassified employees.

Article says it’s likely an OpenAI partnership.

This is why I said anything built on public work, should be public goods as well.

What if I don’t want certain people to build on my work, or to constrain the ways in which the build on it? (Non-commercial, share-alike, attribution, etc. clauses) Should I be able to?

That’s not a good comparison. Crypto was a (bad) solution looking for a problem. GenAI already has use-cases.

I didn’t mean to compare the technology – though there are some similar scam vectors, but that’s a different conversation.

I meant that there was a strong contingent of crypto fans back then who were saying – correctly – that “the mainstream system is corrupt and wields legislation as a weapon against consumers”. But their proposed alternative was a system that removed all regulation, including consumer protections.

I worry that there’s a trend in tech circles today that echoes that sentiment when it comes to AI.

I’m also rather disappointed that a substantial group of people who I used to assume I was aligned with – pirates and open-sourcerers – turned out to only be there for the free shit and not for the ethos.

An ethos which, to me, is something like: everyone has a right to participate in culture and be a part of the conversation, and everyone has a duty to acknowledge the work that enabled their own and do their best to be a good custodian of the upstream works.

Copyright law is broken. But I don’t think that means we have no obligations to each other as human beings when we build on each other’s work.

We had the same argument during the crypto craze. The financial system is broken, but 10 years later I think we all agree that crypto is pretty clearly not the answer.

How do you send 200x as much data?

You don’t. The external system needs to run an approximation of the internal system, which the internal system will also run and only transmit differences.

There you go. Solved it. (By delegating to a new problem.)

Personal use of business assets is generally frowned upon by the IRS.

Can I super-mega-ultra upvote this?

It’s the same playbook as ever. Doubt can only be explained by ignorance, failure can only be explained by under-committing,

The only way to have a “valid” opinion is to have already bought-in and be actively selling other people on it. It’s the same mentality as a cult or a pyramid scheme.

Energy and water.

That’s pretty much the whole point.

Making use of other people’s work and likeness in a way that removes any obligations you would normally have to those people.

Just clearly define “copyright violation” for them, and they’ll craft a method that technically eludes your definition.

But LoSavio had opted out of the arbitration agreement and was given the option of filing an amended complaint.

This is why it’s important to opt out of arbitration!

Also notice the potential for fuckery in the statute of limitations here:

the relevant statutes of limitations range from two to four years, and LoSavio sued over five years after buying the car. Under the delayed discovery rule, the limitations period begins when “the plaintiff has, or should have, inquiry notice of the cause of action.”

But when Tesla declined to update his car’s cameras in April 2022, “LoSavio allegedly discovered that he had been misled by Tesla’s claim that his car had all the hardware needed for full automation.”

Without that specific moment to point to, to reset the clock through delayed discovery, Tesla could just say “Yeah, we lied, but you bought the lie for 5 years, so now we’re in the clear!”

Cherry pie

Only too true.

the study finds that people who are otherwise very good at math may totally flunk a problem that they would otherwise probably be able to solve, simply because giving the right answer goes against their political beliefs.

…

it turns out that highly numerate liberals and conservatives were even more—not less—susceptible to letting politics skew their reasoning than were those with less mathematical ability.