MeaanBeaan

It's not. They've definitely lost lawsuits before.

As for someone changing their mind at the very last minute, Nitschke said: “Once you press that button, there’s no way of going back.”

Regardless of what your philosophical beliefs are this seems like a gigantic problem to me. You should be able to stop the process at any point before you are unconscious. Imagine having second thoughts in that thing after you hit the button. You just know you're fucked, that you are going to die, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. Sounds fucking terrifying.

Not sure where you live but it's typically illegal for your landlord to show up unannounced.

If your only real evidence is witness testimony the death sentence should be fully off the table. It's insane that we're putting people to death based on someone's words. If you don't have absolutely full proof evidence that someone commited a crime there is absolutely no justification for erasing their existence. I am absolutely sick and ashamed to be an American when I read these stories.

"I should call her."

I mean, isn't that how trademark is supposed to work? I'm no expert or anything but the original creator hadn't used the trademark in over ten years and ostensibly had no intention to do so. He also didn't respond to the notice of opposition.

Seems to me the courts did the right thing in letting gametech have the trademark if they intended to use it.

That's not to say that I support them making a shitty Cryptobro game but them obtaining the trademark by itself doesn't really seem shady to me.

Even if this was just an "innocent" slip up it's not like what he said wouldn't have been racist otherwise. The dude is defending the false claims about Haitian immigrants. It's still racist.

Yoko Ohyes

I honestly got the impression that it was some half baked idea from some boneheaded executive that didn't have any idea how they were even going to put it into practice anyway.

Wouldn't be surprised if they just couldn't figure out how to get it working without major issues.

Maybe because there's usually not even a perceptible difference in visual quality between the two and a very noticeable performance difference.

This process is akin to how humans learn by reading widely and absorbing styles and techniques, rather than memorizing and reproducing exact passages.

Machine learning algorithms are not people and are not ingesting these works the same way a person does. This argument is brought up all the time and just doesn't ring true. You're defending the unethical use of copyrighted works by a giant corporation with a metaphor that doesn't have any bearing on reality; in an age where artists are already shamefully undervalued. Creating art is a human process with the express intent of it being enjoyed by other humans. Having an algorithm do it is removing the most important part of art; the humanity.

Could only improve things honestly.