Absolutely. The problem isn’t the technology, it’s how it’s incorporated into capitalism.

A bit of a quibble, but I think it’s a stretch to say that current-gen AI is mind-like. I’m of the opinion that, given the way current AI works, there isn’t any “creativity” in how midjourney/etc. generates images. Though you could make a solid argument for a detailed prompt being creative, or for a functional/algorithmic AI being a creative tool of the coder, in neither case would I say that the source of the creativity is the computer.

Then again, legal definitions would only allow creativity to come from humans, but I think other animal species are currently capable of creativity/art, in the sense of “do they do actions for purposes other than survival or reproduction.”

Yeah, and it’s not like the astronauts just put up a flag and left. They took soil samples, set up sensors to measure tectonic activity, etc. Rocks are interesting when you can interact with them.

I’d say content is trivial, but having the sheer variety of content that youtube has is not. Odysee has some decent stuff on there- even some decent original stuff that isn’t just a mirror of someone’s youtube channel. But it’s not going to have the same niche, specific content I might look up on youtube.

I really like their business model, but unfortunately did not really use curiositystream in the month I tried out the superbundle. Some of the documentaries were alright, but it wasn’t really my thing. I may return to nebula if google figures out a way to axe adblockers for good, though

Yep. I doubt there were that many people using adblockers back when you only had one skippable 15 second ad at the beginning of a video. But when you have 1-2 ads every 10 minutes, on top off all the premium popups, it’s just unbearable.

This is also true. With DRM, I feel like we’re missing out on a lot of property rights that should be remediated. I’m not sure what all could be done for zero day patches, though. Maybe we go back to the Windows XP days and distribute update packages via CD as well. TBH, though- if we have the ability to directly access the storage medium of a console and we are able to remove DRM, there’s no reason to make a disc drive mandatory

I think the main difference between derivative/inspired works created by humans and those created by AI is the presence of “creative effort.” This is something that humans can do, but narrow AI cannot.

Even bland statements humans make about nonfiction facts have some creativity in them, even if the ideas are non-copyrightable (e.g., I cannot copyright the fact that the declaration of independence was signed in 1776. However, the exact way I present this fact can be copyrightable- a timeline, chart, table, passage of text, etc. could all be copyrightable).

“Creative effort” is a hard thing to pin down, since “effort” alone does not qualify (e.g., I can’t copyright a phone directory even if I spent a lot of effort collecting names/numbers, since simply putting names and numbers alongside each other in alphabetical isn’t particularly creative or original). I don’t think there’s really a bright line test for what constitutes as “creative,” but it doesn’t take a lot. Randomness doesn’t qualify either (e.g., I can’t just pick a random stone out of a stream and declare copyright on it, even if it’s a very unique-looking rock).

Narrow AI is ultimately just a very complex algorithm created based on training data. This is oversimplifying a lot of steps involved, but there isn’t anything “creative” or “subjective” involved in how an LLM creates passages of text. At most, I think you could say that the developers of the AI have copyright over the initial code used to make that AI. I think that the outputs of some functional AI could be copyrightable by its developers, but I don’t think any machine-learning AI would really qualify if it’s the sole source of the work.

Personally, I think that the results of what an AI like Midjourney or ChatGPT creates would fall under public domain. Most of the time, it’s removed enough from the source material that it’s not really derivative anymore. However, I think if someone were to prompt one of these AI to create a work that explicitly mimics that of an author or artist, that could be infringement.

IANAL, this is just one random internet user’s opinion.

I imagine that it could also get pretty data-heavy if someone subscribed to a large server on threads (assuming it doesn’t become another metaverse).

USA has been doing this since the cold War. Business as usual, but still important to keep track of

In fairness, privacy issues have been a bit like a “frog in boiling water”. Unless you pay a lot of attention to these things or are completely out of the loop, the average person won’t see the issue.

At least my grandmother’s vindicated now for not wanting to get on Facebook and share those sorts of things

I wonder if this will go differently from Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. ChatGPT likely qualifies as “transformative”, but I’m uncertain if it qualifies as a “public service” or not given that it has a paid tier. How privacy/personal information ties into this should also be interesting.

I imagine a lot of that is due to issues with liability. If a journalist says “X did Y”, that opens them up to lawsuits. If they say “A alleges that X did Y”, then that allows them to report without fear of a lawsuit.

The end of the article did talk about who may have sent them out there.

Two of the survivors said Greek authorities had asked them, through interpreters and lawyers, to give evidence against the nine Egyptians who have been accused of people trafficking.

But all four survivors said the nine Egyptians were passengers, seated among them on the journey. They say the ship’s crew were masked and spent most of their time in the cabin.

“The crew jumped in the water when the coastguard approached and some of these nine Egyptians tried to sail the boat,” one of them told us. “It seems to me they are not the ones involved in people smuggling,” he added.

Relatives of Egyptians who fear their loved ones were on board have told the BBC that they paid $4,500 (£3,500) each for the journey.

Yeah, I’m glad at least a few YouTubers are starting to mirror content on sites like Odysee though (Such as Louis Rossman). I think that, like Lemmy, it just needs to reach a critical mass of users before it’s viable

I kind of hate that you’re right