Oh I’m flattered that you know who I am. I have no idea who you are and don’t intend to even attempt to remember. Rent free baby!

What’s not illegal? Did you even read my post? I said IF THEY BROKE THE LAW ARREST THEM AND CHARGE THEM. What on earth is there to get your knickers in a bunch about in that statement?

Seems you can’t argue the point, but the person instead.

Randomly generated. Go to Google and type randomly generated username and have at it.

Keep your conspiracy theories plausible. You’re failing.

The underlying technology I am talking about.

a) No one is suggesting AI be regarded as equal to a person under law though?

b) if the music is being streamed then it’s up to the streaming company to pay the artists royalties. I have Spotify and I don’t pay the artists - Spotify does.

If the argument is “the people feeding data into the AI illegally acquired the content” then sure, argue that and prosecute them for piracy or whatever. That’s not the argument that is being made though.

By the politicians? I’d love to see that so hopefully if it exists it comes out haha

My point however was that the “rabid congresswoman” absolutely could have assaulted the police.

They do, but the point still stands. No one “owns” what these AIs are learning. That’s what they’re doing - learning, and they’re learning from copyrighted material the same way people learn from copyrighted material. The copyright holders - mainly artists - are just super upset about it because it’s showing that what they provide can be easily learned and emulated by computers.

They’re the horse and carriage sellers when cars were invented.

It’s the same reason why I find the lefts calls for censorship, prosecution of political opponents, stuffing the courts, banning of political parties, etc to be so incredibly stupid and naive.

They don’t understand that while those things are “great” when it’s their beloved do-no-wrong party in power - they won’t be in power forever! When they aren’t in power, those very same laws will be used against them but 10x worse due to the effects of those laws being used against the now-in-power party.

Yeah I don’t care about “karma” or any scores, but I do like to use it as a way to gauge the “temperature” of the conversation. As soon as the dogpiling starts happening, and benign comments that are in no way disagreeable - or even the same as other comments that are highly upvoted - are mass downvoted, you know that you’re in a circle jerk echo chamber.

I’ll happily continue voicing my opinion and defending my stance, but I know it’s a losing battle because the majority aren’t here to actually learn or discuss or change their minds - they’re here to circle jerk and tell each other how bad the thing they hate is and shame those who don’t hate it as much as they do.

The NYT is factually wrong.

They aren’t “trying to” do what the NYT says they are, the actual quote in the article even proves that. They said it’s something that they might consider. Those are not the same things.

If they were “trying to” they would have begun proceedings to do it. Have they? No.

Stop spreading misinformation

Oh the irony.

You don’t know someone’s legal immigration status until you find out. The only people that have been deported or jailed are illegal immigrants.

“Inspired by” is such a great term as it means you can completely fabricate as much as you want, not grounded in reality, not based on anything that ever actually happened, and still have some people believe that it’s based on real life events.

“Inspired by” means absolutely nothing.

Randomly generated username my friend :)

Also Lemmy as a whole is absolutely politically captured. One read of these comments shows that. Also hilariously Lemmy was literally made by hardcore communist ideologists, and they still own and develop it. Right from day 1 it was politically captured, and the influx of far left users and the extreme censorship and hatred of anything even right of far-left hasn’t changed.

Hi there, I’m a tech enthusiast who has worked in the industry longer than you’ve been alive. I know how they work, but thanks for trying to teach me (honestly, good on you for the way you’ve gone about your post)

Closing the screen hasn’t been a complete shutdown in at least a decade. It defaults to a low power state. On devices that are more “always on” like Win10onARM and Chromebook devices, they default to a low power state that still receive notifications etc. This can be changed, but likely not on a school owned and issued device.

Yes, they obviously track everything you do on school issued devices. This should be clear to everyone. It would be spelled out in the terms and conditions of getting it in the first place. The case you’re talking about was almost 20 years ago iirc (2007 I believe), and the photos taken by the device were part of a “help us retrieve stolen devices” thing, that was “not adequately explained” to the parents/kids. It would regularly take photos so it could have evidence of who stole them and where they might be.

If there is there shouldn’t be. Things like diplomatic immunity are terrible and should not exist.

If they broke the law arrest them and charge them. If not, leave them alone.

Seems pretty straight forward.

Assault includes things as simple as unwanted touching. Not all assault is body slamming someone. Spitting at someone is assault.

You’re talking about illegally acquiring content, which isn’t the same as training AI off legally acquired/viewed content.

You already likely do. Every book you read and learned from is copyrighted material. Every video you watch on YouTube and learned from is copyrighted material.

The “without permission” is not correct. You’ve got permission to watch/listen/learn from it by them releasing it and you paying any applicable subscription etc costs. AI does the same.

While I understand their position, I disagree with it.

Training AI on copyrighted data - let’s take music for example - is no different to a kid at home listening to Beatles songs all day and using that as inspiration while learning how to write songs or play an instrument.

You cant copyright a style of music, a sound, or a song structure. As long as the AI isn’t just reproducing the copyrighted content “word for word”, I don’t see what the issue is.

Does the studio ghibli artist own that style of drawing? No, because you can’t own something like that. Others are free to draw whatever they want while replicating that style.

No, passengers is the correct way of saying it. A flight can have hundreds of passengers. A person is a passenger every time they fly a leg on a plane.

Also it’s “passenger flights” in the OP, which would be a record of a passenger on a flight. If a person took 4 flights in one journey, that would count as 4 “passenger flights”.