No human needs to have seen an elephant standing in the road before to know that you should not drive through an elephant standing in the road. These are not "long tail" events as the waymo says. It's a big object in the road. You have seen that hundreds of thousands of times. Calling that a long tail event is an admission that your model has zero ability to generalize.
I don't think there's any way for that to happen, and IF we could create a solid legislative framework, AI could definitely (at some point in the future) contribute more good than bad to society.
It's basically the same dynamic as hedonic adjustment in the CPI calculations. Cars may cost twice as much now they have usb chargers built in so inflation isn't really that bad.
Claim not supported. You haven't established that absolutely no one else could create the thing. People create things all the time under such liberal conditions as public domain, so having dictatorial power over a thing is not a necessary condition to create it.
> And people are free to, even under the duress of copyright. What's the problem there?
I assume a free society should operate with the least duress, because duress is "compulsion by threat or violence; coercion" which actively restricts activity as opposed to merely ignoring or not participating in it.
If someone would be free to create the thing without copyright duress, it is better even if delayed, because it was done with the least restriction of freedom.
The last movie I saw was Disney's Frozen which is based on a Hans Christen Andersen story currently in the public domain. It was good, but not "life of the author + 75 years" good.
Well if we had your way, you'd just be reading the public domain book instead.
>If someone would be free to create the thing without copyright duress, it is better even if delayed, because it was done with the least restriction of freedom.
Who said delayed? I didn't. The alternative isn't Mulholland drive coming out in 2011 instead of 2001, it's it not being made at all.
And it's trivial to opt out of copyright protection, giving your work up to the public domain. I wonder why more authors don't!
My use of duress was ironic and this conversation is not productive.
We often only get the thing for a limited time period after it is lost forever because copyright has prevented the thing from being archived.
A lot of things that are copyrighted would have also been created anyway, often by multiple people, because there is an actual need for them to exist or an inherent human drive to create them. We have been creating things, both with practical applications or as art, long before we had copyright. And with the ability to effortlessly copy works at effectively no cost we do (or would) have an ever increasing library of them which reduces the need to encourage even more creation than what would happen anyway, especially when the cost of that encouragement is not only excessive but ends up impeding many creative endeavors.
>We often only get the thing for a limited time period after it is lost forever because copyright has prevented the thing from being archived.
That's not inherent to copyright, though copyright does grant the author the power to control distribution of its work. Nevertheless, it all eventually becomes public domain.
>A lot of things that are copyrighted would have also been created anyway, often by multiple people, because there is an actual need for them to exist or an inherent human drive to create them.
Such as?
> And with the ability to effortlessly copy works at effectively no cost we do (or would) have an ever increasing library of them which reduces the need to encourage even more creation than what would happen anyway, especially when the cost of that encouragement is not only excessive but ends up impeding many creative endeavors
That's a lot of words but nothing actual. Do you think you'd see David Lynch movies if there was no copyright? What do you think the world today would be like if there was no copyright? Some sort of magical world where authors create for free, without any regard for the finances required to do so? It's a bit ridiculous.
Settings aside this is about CSAM, the US is the only one of the two to shut down a foreign social network because it dislikes what was said on it. The US doesn't get to play that card anymore.
Europe/EU should have whatever free speech they want. But we should annex all european controlled territory in the western hemisphere. The amount of territory that european empires still control in this hemisphere is alarming and frankly embarrassing. From greenland to "french" guyana to the falklands, it should all be seized.
Is this sarcasm ? because sounds like sarcasm.
If Grok generating naked images of children is your ideea of free speech no wonder nobody takes a stand against Trump and Co., you somehow managed turn your common sense to dust...
This game thinks buffalo and bison are the same thing and elk and deer are the same thing. Which is absurd, they even require buying different tags when hunting.
I don't think it's fine for large companies to intentionally lose money to drive smaller competitors out of business. In fact, I think this practice should be illegal and that all who participated should be in jail.
These are just bad contractors. I used to work for a remodeling company. We came in under time on the vast majority of projects because the guy who ran the company knew what he was doing and built slack into the schedule.
reply