The idea is that you change leadership with those who have genuine alignment with subjects' preference for certain policies or ideas, it is not about electing kings who may demand "machines must agree that the Emperor is not naked".
Your subtle idea that the comprehension and understanding is the shortcoming of political apparatus is overlooks the million issues as basic healthcare not being addressed. The problem is not understanding, I can assure you of that.
As someone who uses AI everyday. People who wish to restrict the use of their code by AI should be allowed to do so, but they should make sure their LICENSE is aligned with that. That is the only issue I see.
The mass production discount must not be overlooked, whatever most people want becomes the most cost effective, and it appears that most people want cheap, and so anything beyond the absolute minimum costs a lot more relative to the quality.
I am always fascinated by this degree of assurance and absolute lack of scepticism.
In what way, do you think, a show can have no room for critical viewing? Does being related to "reading or books" sufficient for such unquestionable and noncritical acceptance? Or was something else about it that makes it so cocksure good?
Query parameters are hardly voluntary, just about every linked acquired via "share" button on various platform includes tracking query parameters, including google search results. Combined with the fact that query parameters are has legitimate uses, the distinction complexity becomes indistinguishable from "legitimate WebGL usage" vs "WebGL fingerprint".
It is scary where we are, but you can't solve it by dismissing it as FUD.
The new generation is far more anti war than the 90s hippies. The social media might have set society back on some fronts, but on some fronts, like cross-border understanding and humanisation, it has been a blessing.
Many developers I know don't use MacOS mainly because they depend on containers and virtualisation is slow, but if Apple can pull off efficient virtualisation and good system integration (port mapping, volumes), then it will eat away at a large share of linux systems.
> The problem is that models are shipping that inherently make it easy to reproduce copyrighted works, and apply specific styles lifted from single author's copyrighted bodies of work.
> I am very strongly against this.
> Note that prohibiting copying of a recognizable specific single author's style is even more strict than fair use limits on humans. Stricter makes sense to me, because unlike humans, models are mass producers.
This sounds like gate-keeping rather than genuine copyright concerns.
> Models that make it trivial to create new art deco works, consistent with the total body of art deco works, ok. Models that make it trivial to recreate Erte works, or with an accurately Erte style specifically. Not ok.
Yeah, again, sounds like gate-keeping more than an economic and incentives argument which are, in my opinion, the only legitimate concerns underpinning copyright's moral ground.
Every step of progress has made doing things easier and easier to the point that now arguing with some strange across the world seems trivial, almost natural. Surely there are some arguments to curtail this dangerous machinery that undermines the control of information flow and corrupts the minds of the naive! we must shut it down!
Jokes aside, "making things easier/trivial" is the name of the game of progress. You can't stop progress. Everything will be easier and easier as the time goes on.
It seems like your concerns is about how easy it is going to be to create derivative and similar work, rather than a genuine concerns for copyright. Do I understand correctly?
> There are very few laws that are not giant ambiguities. Where is the line between murder, self-defense and accident? There are no lines in reality.
These things are very well and precisely defined in just about every jurisdiction. The "ambiguities" arise from ascertaining facts of the matter, and whatever some facts fits within a specific set of set rules.
> Something must change regarding copyright and AI model training.
Yes, but this problem is not specific to AI, it is the question of what constitutes a derivative, and that is a rather subjective matter in the light of the good ol' axiom of "nothing is new under the sun".
People suffer worst than death over words all the time, even in the West. Some folks adhere to honour, some to political groups and ideologies, some religion, some to their social views; there are words that are treated as violence and responded to accordingly in every context.
It might seem like an overreaction from a western point of view, but the accusations in the context of Central Asian culture is something so extremely sensitive that people from all walks of life, from nobility to the poor kill and die over it. It is just a different frame of mind.
No, because KYC is about the customer, not product. In the same way that you're not required to sell only trackable microcontrollers for example, only that you can show who you sold them to, not where they went onwards.
There is a tiny Java Bytecode VM in an insanely large list of places, you can find some of them here:
https://github.com/crocs-muni/javacard-curated-list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Card