Th4tGuyII

The problem with this is the same problem news websites has when they started switching out their foreign language writers with AI.

Just because you can translate what is literally being said word by word, doesn’t mean you’re translating the intent of what was being said.

Idioms, phrases, jokes, pleasantries, etc. won’t translate into foreign languages no matter how well you can translate the literal words being said.

If you want good quality translation, you should get someone who knows the language and the culture to do it, as they can translate what’s between the lines.

Given I don’t use it now and it’s free, I don’t think making it paid is suddenly going to incentivise me to do so

If you made a painting for me, and then I started making copies of it without your permission and selling them off, while I might not have stolen the physical painting, I have stolen your art.

Just because they didn’t rip his larynx out of his throat, doesn’t mean you can’t steal someone’s voice.

“We’re trying to have those conversations with Elon to establish what the sensors would need to do,” Baglino added. “And they were really difficult conversations, because he kept coming back to the fact that people have just two eyes and they can drive the car.”

Yes, and people crash cars all the time Elon…

If you want an autopilot with the failure rate of a human, then you might only need two eyes. If you want an autopilot with a near zero failure rate, you need much better telemetry data

Imagine knowingly throwing humanity under the bus to make a quick buck because you know you’ll be dead by the time the consequences come.

I don’t often find myself agreeing with cruel and unusual punishment, but if anyone deserves to suffer Hell on Earth, it’s these people. They deserve to feel the pain they’ve caused through their money-making malice.

The camera simply puts what you see through the viewfinder into a form that can be stored, you’re the one who decides everything about the shot.

Whereas no matter how good your prompting is, it is ultimately the AI who interprets your parameters, who creates the images for you. It is the one doing the artistic work.

Do you not notice the difference? As I said in my last reply, your camera is a tool that functions directly as a consequence of what you do. An AI acts independently of you based on your instruction. It is not the same thing.

Also, I absolutely agree with @Eccitaze

No, because there’s a fundemental difference between a tool that functions directly as a consequence of what you do, and an independent thing that acts based on your instruction.

When you take a photo, you have a direct hand in making it - when you direct an AI to make art, it is the one making the art, you just choose what it makes.

It’s as silly as asking if your paintbrush owns your art as a response to being told that you can’t claim copyright over art you don’t own.

You’re losing the analogy here because these things aren’t analogous. You can only copyright what comes out of the sensor because you took the photograph. Not everything that comes out of a camera sensor is copyrightable, such as photos taken by non-humans.

There’s a fundemental difference between a tool that functions directly as a consequence of what you do, and an independent thing that acts based on your instruction. When you take a photo, you have a direct hand in making it - when you direct an AI to make art, it is the one making the art, you just choose what it makes.

Look, if I train a monkey to draw art, no matter how good my instructions or the resulting art is, I don’t own that art, the monkey does.

As non-human animals cannot copyright their works, it then thusly defaults to the public domain.

The same applies to AI. You train it to make the art you want, but you’re not the one making the art, the AI is. There’s no human element in the creation itself, just like with the monkey.

You can edit or make changes as you like to the art, and you own those, but you don’t own the art because the monkey/AI drew it.

The difference is it’s not you making the art.

The photographer is the one making the photo, it is their skill in doing ehat I described above that directly makes the photo. Whereas your prompts, tweaking, etc. are instructions for an AI to make the scenery for you based on other people’s artwork.

I actually have a better analogy for you…

If I trained a monkey to take photos, no matter how good my instructions or the resulting photo are, I don’t own those photos, the monkey does. Though in actuality, the work goes to the public domain in lieu as non-human animals cannot claim copyright.

If you edit that monkey’s photo, you own the edit, but you still don’t own the photo because the monkey took it.

The same should, does currently seem to, apply to AI. It is especially true when that AI is trained on information you don’t hold copyright or licensing for.

Because the human element is in everything they had to do to set up the photograph, from physically going to the location, to setting up the camera properly, to ensuring the right lighting, etc.

In an AI generated image, the only human element is in putting in a prompt(s) and selecting which picture you want. The AI made the art, not you, so only the enhancements on it are copywritable because those are the human element you added.

This scenario is closer to me asking why can’t I claim copyright over the objects in my photograph, be

This scenario is closer to me asking why I can’t claim the copyright of the things I took a photograph of, and only the photograph itself. The answer usually being because I didn’t make those things, somebody/something else did, I only made the photo.

Edit: Posted this without realising I hadn’t finished my last paragraph. Oops

Of all the places to try to escape from Russia via, I can’t help but feel like their vassal state wasn’t a good idea

Exactly. Online safety my arse.

Putting a backdoor onto people’s phones to bypass encryption and forcing them to upload photos of themselves doesn’t do shit to keep them safe. If anything it endangers them!

And for what exactly?? Do they not think that criminals will just find other ways to communicate, just like they always have? Are they that desperate to catch the stragglers left behind? This will literally only hurt the common folk just trying to get on with their lives, nobody else, just like every other mass surveillance law.

Exactly. I’d bet good money most people don’t get enjoyment out of job hopping, but it’s almost necessary these days because companies have become increasingly disloyal and stingy towards employees.

If companies would just offer decent raises, meaningful career progression, and two-way loyalty, I’d bet most folks wouldn’t job hop at all!

If the GOP didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any at all.

They go on and on about the first amendment, moan about private businesses even treading near to their first amendment right, but yet they’re more than happy to curbstomp everybody else’s they disagree with. Dirty bigoted hypocrites.

It may be prison, but those inmates are still human.

Even death row inmates get to die in less cruel ways than being effectively boiled alive.

Their punishment was their isolation from society and its luxuries, any further suffering purposefully/neglectfully introduced by the prison is cruel and unnecessary.

Whether you like it or not people are going to carry resentment towards the Russians, as it’s their government that is over in Ukraine literally committing war crimes.

It’s the irony of Russians complaining when Ukraine does even an iota of punching back that frustrates people.

It’s kinda sad how misinformed many Russians are about what their state is up in Ukraine, and act like Ukraine has no right to fight back

Imagine being so short sighted as to lambast the main selling point of your own product to the world.

If even Zoom won’t use their own product, how are they supposed to persuade other people to?

This same BS headline happens every generation. As soon as any small trends form, the media latch onto it like it’s gonna be the next big thing…

No, feature phones aren’t gaining mass adoption again. No, feature phones aren’t going to kill smartphones. It’s just a subset of people deciding to downgrade, or who want to buy a secondary phone.