I think this is a difficult concept to tackle, but the main argument I see about using existing works as 'training data' is the idea that 'everything is a remix'.

I, as a human, can paint an exact copy of a Picasso work or any other artist. This is not illegal and I have no need of a license to do this. I definitely don't need a license to paint something 'in the style of Picasso', and I can definitely sell it with my own name on it.

But the question is, what about when a computer does the same thing? What is the difference? Speed? Scale? Anyone can view a picture of the Mona Lisa at any time and make their own painting of it. You can't use the image of the Mona Lisa without accreditation and licensing, but what about a recreation of the Mona Lisa?

I'm not really arguing pro-AI here, although it may sound like it. I've just heard the 'licensing' argument many times and I'd really like to hear what the difference between a human copying and a computer copying are, if someone knows more about the law.

Best part of the article:

"Goel’s scheme was uncovered in an in-depth investigation by reporter Allie Conti in 2019, who detangled the plot after being double-booked at one of his properties in Chicago and receiving a suspicious last-minute cancellation. Conti was contacted by the FBI days after the article was published."

I wish there was more of this. Good investigative journalism has been one of the most powerful weapons in justice, and I fear it's diminishing rapidly.

Yes, her position is even more defensible than I anticipated. She's clearly correct and following Maine law, as she states.

There already is a process to allow immigrants to spread around the country, what Texas is doing is delaying and circumventing that process, making it take longer and cost more. I say send Texas the bill for their nonsense.

Or we could just work remotely, which is far more productive.

'A massive tech exodus' in the headline, then names 3 large companies who never actually moved to Texas, and 3 companies nobody's ever heard of.

This isn't journalism.

The problem is not that driverless cars won't be viable. The problem is the same as several other tech developments where a few startups promise tech that hasn't matured yet, taking in billions of 'stupid' money from investors who are greedy but not knowledgeable about the underlying viability of what can realistically be done in a decade.

One hundred years from now? Driverless cars will be old news, so common or maybe even surpassed with something newer. But investors want a 10 year explosion of cash, not a 50 year investment.

There's no science behind the head garb that Sultan Ahmed al Jaber wears, but he does it anyway.

Maybe he doesn't understand science, or maybe he's just trying to lie for money, who's to say?

Me. I'll say he's just lying for money.

She lives in a gerrymandered district that not only means she barely has to campaign or work, her district strategically cuts chunks out of two very blue NC cities.

Fuck her lazy incompetent ass and everything she stands for.

Source: my vote is specifically suppressed by her district.

This bullshit about cutting Social Security benefits to 'keep it solvent' needs to be stopped. The Republicans have been trying to do this since Reagan, and in the 80s they were telling Gen X that Social Security would 'run out of money' by the time they were 30. That age is decades in the past, and they are still peddling that lie.

Or, Elon Musk is just an idiot doing the same idiot things he's always done.

This propaganda to constantly scare workers has got to stop already. AI is nowhere near being able to do this, all AI can do is provide better tools.

This kind of 'journalism' is eye-rollingly painful.