xenomor

This take is correct although I would make one addition. It is true that copyright violation doesn’t happen when copyrighted material is inputted or when models are trained. While the outputs of these models are not necessarily copyright violations, it is possible for them to violate copyright. The same standards for violation that apply to humans should apply to these models.

I entirely reject the claims that there should be one standard for humans and another for these models. Every time this debate pops up, people claim some province based on ‘intelligence’ or ‘conscience’ or ‘understanding’ or ‘awareness’. This is a meaningless argument because we have no clear understanding about what those things are. I’m not claiming anything about the nature of these models. I’m just pointing out that people love to apply an undefined standard to them.

We should apply the same copyright standards to people, models, corporations, and old-school algorithms.

The all-encompassing ethos of malicious self-interest that both trump and the crypto community embody makes them a perfect match for each other.

Biden is ideologically committed to Israeli apartheid and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, via genocide if necessary. trump, most Republicans, and most Democrats support or at least tolerate it for political expediency. It’s so gross. Because Biden has faced very few political consequences for all this, the Harris campaign, and presumably a Harris administration will just continue on with the hypocrisy, injustice, and violence. I cannot over emphasize that, given the distribution of power in the region, this is a US endeavor.

People will downvote this comment because it is uncomfortable to accept, not because it’s untrue.

Rich idiots failing upward, unite!

RFK is basically that brain worm piloting a vaguely human-shaped mecha. Tulsi is literally a cult princess. In these regards, they are perfect additions to the shit gibbon’s rogues gallery.

The problem with what creeps like Mann are claiming comes down to the difference between “art” and buying an “interest” in art as a speculative investment. Mann conflates these two ideas, trying to bestow the wholesomeness of artistic expression with his investment business venture. I’m all in favor of getting artists paid, and structuring society in a way that encourages the production of art, but Mann wants to weaken securities regulations and consumer protections to do that. That’s a terrible idea because it will lead to many more people being conned and defrauded.

If investors were merely trying to support an artist’s work, and not seeking to profit from their investment, they wouldn’t need a securities mechanism like NFTs to do it. We already have money for that.

If a side effect of regulating NFTs as securities is to somehow damage the regular fine art marketplace, as I think Mann’s suit is warning, that is no great loss for society. The fine art market is a blight, a fraud-riddled playground for ultra wealthy douchebags to sequester wealth and does nothing to advance art or promote the creation of artworks writ large.

Mann has ridden the crypto speculative bubble and has an inflated impression of the value of his work. He’s carved out a niche as a sort of court jester for billionaires like Mark Andreesen who want to rebuild financial systems in a way that would dismantle the regulatory state and enshrine an elite class as technologically empowered feudal lords. He thinks the money is compensation for his songs, but it’s largely just a side effect of crypto bros forever trying to find a greater fool to hold the bag in a pyramid scheme. In that effort, his lawsuit is basically a marketing campaign for his investment business. I hope the court puts an end to this once and for all, but I’m not optimistic.

Never once did I ‘bait’ or even suggest that people not vote. I’m calling out a candidate’s policy position which is what people do in healthy democracies, but, uh whatever.

Oh. Advocating for a policy and calling out a candidate for their position is anti democratic. Got it.

Not sure if you are responding to a different comment because this is confusing and not really addressing the point I made. Are you suggesting that every single constituent who has an opinion should run for office?

Honestly, how else do you suggest people exert influence over leadership in a democracy? The ‘campaign’ is an inconvenient time to debate these issues. Then, it will be ‘too early’ in her administration to debate these issues (why don’t we just give her a chance after-all!). Then it will be, ‘the electorate spoke when they voted her in. If you didn’t want this, why did you vote for her?’ Then it will be campaign time again.

If her position is an existential threat to her electability, then she is making a huge political mistake by taking this stance and you should call her out for endangering American democracy. If it isn’t, what are you complaining about?