Well, not every metric. I bet the computers generated them way faster, lol. :P

To be clear, harassment and defamation are crimes in the US as well. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you can harm people with your speech with impunity. It’s a prohibition on the government from meddling with political speech, especially that of people who are detractors of the government.

I think the issue is that, while a country is certainly allowed to write it’s own laws, the idea that it is deeply fundamentally immoral for the government to prevent someone from saying something (or compel them to say something) is very deeply baked into the American zeitgeist (of which I am a part.)

So in the same way that a country is perfectly within its sovereign rights to pass a law that women are property or minorities don’t have the right to vote, I can still say that it feels wrong of them to do so.

And I would also decry a country that kicks out a company that chooses to employ women or minorities in violation of such a law, even if that is technically their sovereign right to do so.

Printing Nazi propaganda isn’t illegal in the US.

And I realize this isn’t in the US, obviously. But I think that the idea that the government shouldn’t be able to ban people from saying things, or compel them to say things, is so baked into the American zeitgeist (of which I am a member), that it feels wrong in a fundamental moral sense when it happens.

It’s the old, “I don’t agree with anything that man says, but I’ll defend to the death his right to say it,” thing.

I can see both sides on this one I think?

Out of curiosity, would you feel differently about this if it had been a print newsletter or physical book publisher that was printing Nazi propaganda that got shutdown because they refused to stop printing Nazi propaganda?

If so, what’s the substantive difference? If not, are you affirming banning people from publishing books based on ideological grounds?

Obviously banning books is bad, but obviously Nazis are bad, and that’s a hard square to circle.

Why not just compare the model 3 to an 18-wheeler then? Those weigh way more. Would have made his point better.

And it’s a completely meaningful comparison, as long as you throw away the fact that different vehicles are used for different things.

A model 3 to an f150 is absolutely apples and oranges.

But does it protect a company who is throwing out food that someone then eats? They aren’t a good Samaritan in that case.

And even if it’s lawful federally, they may run against local ordinances.

And even if every single thing is above board, that still doesn’t stop them from getting sued. It just means they’d win. But legal costs being what they are, it’s probably cheaper to just run off anybody who might be litigious before something can happen.

I’m well aware of the existence of alternatives. But you must agree that what is achievable with an implant far outstrips the current alternatives?

Maybe someday, but that’s not the point of the tech as it stands. It’s accessibility.

They guy who it failed in (Noland Arbaugh) is a full on quadriplegic. The ability to use a computer in a semi-normal way is absolutely beyond life changing for him.

I was just about to say, isn’t this just OpenStack?

I don’t even think OpenStack is needlessly complicated.
Yes, it is complicated, but who thinks operating a cloud environment the equivalent of AWS is trivial?

Sceptre makes modern, affordable dumb TVs.

What clear rule did she violate though? Like, Grammerly isn’t an AI tool. It’s a glorified spell check. And several of her previous professors had recommended it’s use.

What she did “wrong” was write something that TurnItIn decided to flag as AI generated, which it’s incredibly far from 100% accurate at.

Like, what should she have done differently?

As I get older, I’ve realized that places like here and reddit would be wildly better if everyone younger than me wasn’t allowed to use it, lol. :P

Fair on all counts. I guess my counter then would be, what is AI art other than running a bunch of pieces of other art through a computer system, then adding some “stuff you did” (to use your phrase) via a prompt, and then submitting the output as your own art.

That’s nearly identical to my fractal example, which I think you’re saying would actually be fair use?

I feel like you latched on to one sentence in my post and didn’t engage with the rest of it at all.

That sentence, in your defense, was my most poorly articulated, but I feel like you responded devoid of any context.

Am I to take it, from your response, that you think that a fractal image that uses a copywritten image as a seed to it’s random number generator would be copyright infringement?

If so, how much do I, as the creator, have to “transform” that base binary string to make it “fair use” in your mind? Are random but flips sufficient?
If so, how is me doing that different than having the machine do that as a tool? If not, how is that different than me editing the bits using a graphical tool?

Out of curiosity, how far do you extend this logic?

Let’s say I’m an artist who does fractal art, and I do a line of images where I take jpegs of copywrite protected art and use the data as a seed to my fractal generation function.

Have I have then, in that instance, taken a copywritten work and simply applied some static algorithm to it and passed it off as my own work, or have I done something truly transformative?

The final image I’m displaying as my own art has no meaningful visual cues to the original image, as it’s just lines and colors generated using the image as a seed, but I’ve also not applied any “human artistry” to it, as I’ve just run it through an algorithm.

Should I have to pay the original copywrite holder?
If so, what makes that fundamentally different from me looking at the copywritten image and drawing something that it inspired me to draw?
If not, what makes that fundamentally different from AI images?

And real children aren’t in a capitalist society?

To be fair, I think your analogy falls apart a bit because you can in fact take a picture of pretty much any art you want to, legally speaking.

You can’t go sell it or anything, but you are definitely not in breach of copyright just by taking the picture.

I don’t think you’ve read your own source right. As far as I can tell that doesn’t say paper is preferred anywhere. That document seems to just be saying, “if you use paper, use this, if digital, use this” for each type of data you want to store.

And while I agree they’re not recommending to shred all their paper documents and scan them into PDF, they’re also not recommending to print off all your electronic documents and put them into filing cabinets either. Both are acceptable formats for different things, in their opinion.

And while I agree that low acid paper isn’t likely to break down over 1000 years if left alone, the odds of the building they are in burning down or getting a silverfish infestation is actually pretty decent over a 1000yr period, so I don’t think the odds of them surviving is nearly as good as you think.

And also, while I agree that PDF will likely be replaced a few dozen times in the next millennium, it’s also really just a glorified markdown format. Every new standard will have converters to move from the previous standard to the new. Is that work? Certainly. Is it more work than actively maintaining physical archives? No. Especially since, as PDF is the defacto standard for electronic documents for every world government, any major shift in that standard will have well support paths forward for upgrading.

And most importantly, none of your points actually addressed my core point, which was, regardless of which one is “easier” to maintain, it’s clear and obvious which one is cheaper. The cost associated with maintaining large physical archives is astronomical. Buying up some cloud storage is minimal.