Kerfuffle

I just want fucking humans paid for their work

That's a problem whether or not we're talking about AI.

why do you tech nerds have to innovate new ways to lick the boots of capital every few years?

That's really not how it works. "Tech nerds" aren't licking the boots of capitalists, capitalists just try to exploit any tech for maximum advantage. What are the tech nerds supposed to do, just stop all scientific and technological progress?

why AI should own all of our work, for free, rights be damned,

AI doesn't "own your work" any more than a human artist who learned from it does. You don't like the end result, but you also don't seem to know how to come up with a coherent argument against the process of getting there. Like I mentioned, there are better arguments against it than "it's stealing", "it's violating our rights" because those have some serious issues.

Artists who look at art are processing it in a relatable, human way.

Yeah, sure. But there's nothing that says "it's not stealing if you do it in a relatable, human way". Stealing doesn't have anything to do with that.

knowing that work is copyrighted and not available for someone else’s commercial project to develop an AI.

And it is available for someone else's commercial project to develop a human artist? Basically, the "an AI" part is still irrelevant to. If the works are out there where it's possible to view them, then it's possible for both humans and AIs to acquire them and use them for training. I don't think "theft" is a good argument against it.

But there are probably others. I can think of a few.

You can’t tell it to find art and plug it in.

Kind of. The AI doesn't go out and find/do anything, people include images in its training data though. So it's the human that's finding the art and plugging it in — most likely through automated processes that just scrape massive amounts of images and add them to the corpus used for training.

It doesn’t have the capability to store or copy existing artworks. It only contains the matrix of vectors which contain concepts.

Sorry, this is wrong. You definitely can train AI to produce works that are very nearly a direct copy. How "original" works created by the AI are is going to depend on the size of the corpus it got trained on. If you train the AI (or put a lot of weight on) training for just a couple works from one specific artist or something like that it's going to output stuff that's very similar. If you train the AI on 1,000,000 images from all different artists, the output isn't really going to resemble any specific artist's style or work.

That's why the company emphasized they weren't training the AI to replicate a specific artist's (or design company, etc) works.

They deliberately do that in some public toilets to discourage people from hooking up in there.

Doubled down on the “yea were not gonna credit artist’s our AI stole from”. What a supreme douche

I don't think it's as simple as all that. Artists look at other artists' work when they're learning, for ideas, for methods of doing stuff, etc. Good artists probably have looked at a ton of other artwork, they don't just form their skills in a vacuum. Do they need to credit all the artists they "stole from"?

In the article, the company made a point about not using AI models specifically trained on a smaller set of works (or some artist's individual works). Doing something like that would be a lot easier to argue that it's stealing: but the same would be true if a human artist carefully studied another person's work and tried to emulate their style/ideas. I think there's a difference between that an "learning" (or learning) for a large body of work and not emulating any specific artist, company, individual works, etc.

Obviously it's something that needs to be handled fairly carefully, but that can be true with human artists too.

It's actually not that hard to start having them pretty frequently. I always had that same problem though: I'd realize I was dreaming, say "Wow, I'm actually dreaming and aware of it. This is amaz-" and wake up. There are supposedly tricks you can use to prevent yourself from waking up like spinning around, but it didn't seem to help even when I remembered to try in the dream.

You can make them more frequent by just thinking to yourself "Am I dreaming?" and checking if you are a bunch of times a day. 5-6 is probably enough. Keep that up for a few weeks and you'll probably start having frequent lucid dreams. I read that lucid dreams aren't really that restful compared to normal sleep though, so don't try to induce them unless you can spare the sleep time.

You can wing it with baking, at least for some types of stuff. Oatmeal raisin cookies don't really take precision, as an example.

Ahh, I hate Snap so much. It actually what drove me to switch to Arch (btw). It was just so annoying going to install something and having it try to pull in snap and all its dependencies... And of course, if you don't want Snap you have to deal with the inconvenience of finding another way to install the app.

There are reasons to dislike Snap on principle and also very practical reasons. It liked randomly preventing the system from shutting down. Installing a new OS on a slow or unreliable internet connection and want a browser? How about we install Snap and then tell to download that thing and maybe a bunch of random internal dependencies with no visible progress and unreliable error handling? Get it away from me.

One of these is true:

1. Your account was hacked..
2. You have a serious memory issue.
3. Saying hateful, rude stuff is something you do so commonly you can't even keep track of the instances.

Pretty much all of those are problems that you should deal with.

As sad as it is to say, "in general" no product is. Some stuff is worse than average like cocoa and child slave labor or meat/eggs/dairy and cruelty death for animals but overall unless there's really visible evidence showing a product was produced ethically (or more ethically), then it probably wasn't. After all, if the business selling the item could brag about it, they would.

Wow, what an incredibly creative idea! I bet it would work great in the US, I'm going to be ri... What, you say? Prison slave labor is already a multi-million dollar industry?

"They found that in a community of 15,000 electric cars only 1.5 percent of batteries have been replaced if you exclude massive recalls [...] The team also points out that most battery replacements happen when the car is still covered by a warranty."

I'm not sure looking at the stats like that is really all that useful.

There are two situations where the battery replacement happens:

1. The user forks over the money to replace it personally.
2. They manage to convince the manufacturer to cover the cost.

It's definitely not a given that everyone who wants to replace their battery can and does. This post is about longevity, so presumably most of the time in that situation the person will have to cover the cost of replacement themselves.

I want to be clear, I'm not arguing against EVs. I'm just saying this article doesn't really have enough information to draw a conclusion.