I honestly don't think that he's going to be forced out. To be blunt, the people who could force him out are likely the people who pushed for these changes in the first place. They wanted 3rd party apps to die so they could minimize costs caused by API usage, and force more users to the official app so they could put more eyeballs in front of ads while scraping more PII from users to sell. That mission has been fully accomplished. Literally all of the fallout--the protests, the decrease in content moderation due to less mods/worse mod tools, the decrease in content quality from power users leaving, the flood of "fuck /u/spez" on every comment thread, the stream of negative articles on the tech press, all of it--were literally not accounted for because they were considered to be externalities. Just as a chemical company doesn't consider the effects of dumping waste into a nearby river, Reddit didn't consider the effects of alienating the majority of the userbase that were responsible for making reddit what it was.
Eccitaze
I just checked and literally every post in the past three days was submitted by just two accounts, with one user accounting for easily 95% of the posts.
Jesus, reddit really is dying.
To be fair, there isn't an example from the Windows store specifically, because the vast, vast majority of Windows programs are installed via standalone installation packages.
But yes, there was one instance where uninstalling a game would recursively delete the parent directory, up to and including potentially deleting the entire C:\ drive.
Nah, you just grabbed whatever shitty articles backed up your existing viewpoint because if you'd bothered to do any actual research you'd have seen that at worst there's a hell of a lot more nuance than the anti-trans bigotry you spewed all over the thread:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9793415/
https://www.healthline.com/health/are-puberty-blockers-reversible
Oh, and please note that my sources are from official government sources and peer-reviewed journals, not transphobic right-wing rags that are pushing agendas.
Let's see...
Right-wing rag, right-wing rag that has the phrase "Biblical truth" in its slogan, right-wing rag pushing vaccine conspiracies and transphobia on its front page, aaand... anti-trans hate group.
Your bias is showing.
FF16 was the first game I preordered in over a decade, and even then I only preordered it after I played the free demo and thoroughly enjoyed it.
On the one hand, I can understand her anger at the party. I personally disagree with her stances, but I can't hate on someone for not wanting to associate with a party that advertises a blank check while saying "all this needs is a primary challenger."
On the other hand... How the fuck can the GOP leadership say welcome her by saying they're a party "where diversity of opinion is welcome" with a straight face?!?!
I worked graveyard shifts at a gas station for a year or two. My general experience beyond what other people have said--good commute, fucking with your social life, taking its toll on your body, all that--is that working graveyard shifts is lonely. I cannot understate how lonely it got; there were stretches of multiple hours where there were no customers at all, and it was just me and the long list of nightly chores I had to do (mopping floors, prepping food for breakfast rush, restocking shelves, etc., etc.). Not having any human contact at all fucks with your head something fierce, especially when you mix in sleep deprivation and your body rebelling against the normal sleep rhythm into the mix.
My advise is that if you're going to be working night shift all alone, get into podcasts. Having a radio that I could use to listen to NPR was the main thing that kept me sane, because I could at least have a human voice to listen to and keep my mind somewhat engaged.
I'm not shifting the goal post--I have been consistent in my position that AI does not truly "learn" in the way that humans do, and is incapable of the comprehension required for actual human creativity. Tay spouting racist rhetoric because that's what was put into it supports that position, if anything; if it were capable of comprehending the language it was being fed, it wouldn't have done that.
You have stated that it's not infringing on copyright to train a model on published works, yes. I wholeheartedly disagree, because, as I have previously stated, AI models as they currently exist cannot produce new, derivative works based off the training model, but only reconstitute the training model together in various different combinations. This is important because one of the requirements for copyright protection, as per the US Copyright Office, is that it's an independent creation, which "means that the author created the work without copying from other works." AI's inability to create its own work without copying from other works means that it cannot produce copyrightable material.
As a result, if you input an infringing dataset into an AI's training model, the resulting output is also infringing, because it is not, and cannot, be transformative to the level required to meet the minimal creativity threshold needed for copyright protection. At best, you can make an argument that the infringement in an AI's output is acceptable under the de minimis doctrine (i.e. that the amount of the copyrighted work contained in an infringing work is so trivial as to not warrant protection). However, my belief is that if a hypothetical composite work takes all of its source material from 100 different copyrighted sources, it wouldn't qualify for de minimis protection because the composite work is 100% infringing, even though each individual source only contributed 1% to the total work.
To summarize, my line of thinking is as follows:
- The specific output of an AI does not in of itself qualify for copyright protection because no human minds were involved in creating it, except for the mind that gave the AI the prompt; however, this involvement is not significant enough to overcome the minimal creativity standard required for copyright protection. This is the position of the US Copyright Office (page 7, The Human Authorship Requirement):
The U.S. Copyright Office will register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being. The copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind.” Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 94 (1879). Because copyright law is limited to “original intellectual conceptions of the author,” the Office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work.
-
Since the specific output of an AI model lacks any copyright protection, that output does not qualify for any related defenses such as fair use because as these defenses require significant transformative effort of the work in question. If something cannot be transformative, novel, or new enough to qualify for copyright protection in the first place, it's impossible for it to be transformative enough for a fair use defense. It also cannot qualify for copyright protection as a compilation or derivative work, as they both must contain copyrightable subject matter--since the AI output is not copyrightable, they cannot be claimed as either compliations or derivatives.
-
As a result, if the training dataset input to an AI model is infringing, then the output of that AI model is also infringing, since the output does not independently qualify for copyright protection, nor can they leverage related defenses.
I’m sorry, but you realize that this doesn’t make any sense right? Large corporations are the ones who would have enough information and/or money at their disposal to train their own AIs without relying on publicized works. Should any kind of blockade be created to stop people training AI models from using public work, you would effectively be taking AI away from the masses in the form of Open Source models, not from those corporations. So if anything, it’s you who is arguing for large corporations to have a monopoly on AI technology as it currently is.
Large corporations and open-source AI models are scraping our IP without consent because they think they can get away with it, and because it's easier to steal it than properly obtaining consent from the people whose content they are using. And to be clear, I don't give a shit if preventing AI from stealing copyrighted content kills large open-source AI tools. If the only way they can be useful is by committing mass infringement, then they don't deserve to exist. They can either use their own internally-developed datasets, datasets that only draw from the public domain, obtain the consent (which may or may not include royalties) from creators, or wither on the vine. That applies to both open-source and commercial AI technology.
Finally, I want to make it 100% clear that I have no issues with AI models that do not use copyrighted material in their training datasets. My employer introduced an AI chatbot trained entirely on our internal and public knowledgebases, and I'm perfectly fine with that morally/ethically/legally. (Personally, I think it's a little useless since the last time I used it the damn thing confidently gave me a false answer with fake links to nonexistent KB articles, but that's besides the point.) My entire issue with AI is centered around the unlicensed use of copyrighted material by AI models without the creator's consent, attribution, or compensation.
Tab completion is the main way I check that I'm using a valid file path in the command, especially when I'm deleting something. (and even then I double and triple check the path when I delete something lol)
Smart TVs will collect your personal info and viewing habits and send it to the manufacturer of they're given half a chance
Some scummy brands will even configure their TVs to automatically and silently connect to open wifi networks to phone home