Given the size of this bubble (WAY bigger than 2007), the taxpayers are going to hold the bag. We might as well force the companies to share the benefits (if any) as well.

Currently, there are no profits, tho.

LLM output doesn’t automatically get a copyright. But, if it is (part of) a work that includes “human creative effort” (prompts don’t count), the human(s) can hold a copyright on that work.

In addition, the output can still be a derivative work in violation of the copyrights of (some of) the training data, whether or not there are copyrights on that output. It would have to have sufficient similarity to some work in the training data, but that’s not too uncommon.

And, GPL and CC-SA works are known to be in the training data of most models, including Apertus.

Yeah, I kept my last car 15 years, I hope I can get at least 15 out of the Volt.

But, with the ranges on current EV models, I’ll be comfortable going without an ICE and everything that goes with it for my next vehicle.

Yeah, my Volt varies a bit, but after 7 years it has about 10% loss (51mi. -> 46mi.)

Range has always been less in winter, but not 40%. On a day that never gets above -4, I can still get 29mi. off the battery.

I do 120v / 12A charging at home and an overnight charge exceeds my daily commute. But, yes, a 240v / 25A charger is much faster and an overnight charge in them can cover a daily commute I would find punishingly long.

I would like it to be as fast as gas. But, yeah, if you can walk from the charger to a restroom and maybe grab some food, I really don’t care if it take 15-30 minutes to get back up to 80%.

I currently own a Volt and usually charge at home. My last road-trip OK->IA (and back a week later), I found it hard to find compatible charging stations so much so that I barely used them. On the way back, I did go out of my way to find one – the first one had no facilities at all (it was a dealer parking lot at the corner of two 5-lane stroads with no crosswalk signals), the second one was inaccessible behind a locked gate, the third one several blocks away from any facilities but close enough to walk to one restaurant.

I still plan to get an EV when I finally have to replace the Volt, but I gotta say the charging situation away from home is pretty bleak, IME. Maybe it’s better in different parts of the country. It is almost certainly better on DC charging; I found a few convenience store / gas station / fast food combination buildings that also had DC charging that I would have used if I could. (Volt only has AC charging.)

Don’t trust anyone over 25, including me (46).

Bwahaha. Taxpayers will definitely bail out this industry, especially if the crash happens during this administration. That will be true whether or not be force some level of public ownership to reap any rewards that might accrue.

It’s mostly a nothing-burger right now:

This new Trump administration brief is not a ruling, as the case is being tried in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the authors of the brief do not have jurisdiction.

The U.S. copyright office somewhat contradicts the brief:

The training process [also] implicates the right of reproduction.

– https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ Part 3, III, B.

Tho, the same documents do mention that “fair use” defenses can apply, but as always they depend on a lot of factors specific to individual acts of possible infringement.

That’s a very “doomer” view of democracy, but you might be right.

The documents I quote are from publications by the U.S. Copyright Office. But, the Berne convention and the WTO ensure that member states copyrights are aligned.

I doubt “allow for AI generated code” has the bipartisan support you think it does; it certainly doesn’t have the popular support. But, ever if it were legal, it should still be unethical (e.g. Amnesty International’s reports of human rights violations in generative AI), and I’d be attempting to avoid it.

I’ve decided to start moving to NetBSD. The copyright status of genAI code is very questionable, and it’s likely any project that integrates it, with be “extinguished” via legal action in the future.

Oh, violence, even lethal violence might be necessary in defense of self or others. But, we must not deny that we are dealing with persons. I’m not even saying don’t dox the guy, I’m saying that don’t forget that you are doxing a person.

The focus should be on rehabilitating the person and remediating any harm they have caused, not on returning harm with harm. Of course, if they are being violent or legitimately threatening violence, defensive violence SHOULD be taken to contain/control/remove the threat.

Violating his privacy might be a good lesson in how “we should balance privacy and safety” as part of his rehabilitation, but we can do that without dehumanization.

Defensive violence is justified only so long as it is defensive.

For example, torturing prisoners is immoral even if the prisoners in question were (and want to be) executioners for the State. They do not pose a legitimate threat of violence when they are (controlled) prisoners.

This is dehumanization. It is the tool of the enemy. We do not need it. We will not use it.

Batman_breaks_rifle.jpegxl

–

If you dehumanize persons, you aren’t a leftist or revolutionary or the resistance or an activist. You are a fascist.

I think technically that might have been Lindows.

My new game is a roguevania, souls like, gothic horror version of Metroid. /s

You make it sound simple and absolute. But, our rights are severely curtailed even in the U.S. via the DMCA. If your console, or even the game code on disk, requires an okay from the manufacturer as a “copyright protection” and you bypass that in any way, you have just committed a felony and are considered by the State a valid target for violence.

Of course, simply accepting the lack of physical media doesn’t help make the situation any better.

I think in the U.S. the nuclear permitting process is so much longer than the methane generator permitting process, and they don’t want to wait.

loss of decorum is going to shut down a discussion

Can someone explain why this isn’t “civility politics” and simply used as a tool to further marginalize persons that already don’t have enough representation?

When a person advocates for making it harder for other persons to participate in public life, it should be acceptable to have an emotional response, including but not limited to ad hominem attacks, while also building the reasonable/logical/rational/non-fallacious arguments against them.