Oh thank goodness. Worst fear allayed, now on to the next one.

There's currently a hurricane incoming from the Gulf of Mexico, it'll be interesting to compare the damage it causes to the damage that would have been caused by a regular rocket launch.

Ultimately, these rocket operations need to be done somewhere. Due to their nature that "somewhere" has a lot of restrictions on it. It needs to be as far south as practical (to benefit from Earth's rotation), it needs to be somewhere far from human habitation for safety and sonic reasons, and the path to the west needs to be clear of stuff that could be damaged by falling debris. For political reasons it needs to be in the United States. All these competing criteria generally mean it's going to have to be on a southern coastline where there's currently wilderness.

Yeah, maybe it'd be better if some politicians were working on this instead.

If California passes major restrictions on AI training then I think AI guys would very much want to be anywhere else.

There are already plenty of places to go. Major centers of AI activity include the UK, France, Israel, China and Canada. Many of the top AI companies aren't headquartered in California even if they're US-based.

AI's future in California hangs in the balance.

Again, it's fundamentally the same thing. You're just using different tools to perform the same action.

I remember back in the day when software patents were the big boogeyman of the Internet that everyone hated, and the phrase "...with a computer" was treated with great derision. People were taking out huge numbers of patents that were basically the same as things people had been doing since time immemorial but by adding the magical "...with a computer" suffix on it they were treating it like some completely new innovation.

Suddenly we're on the other side of that?

Anyway, even if you do throw that distinction in you still end up outlawing huge swathes of things that we've depended on for years. Search engines as the most obvious example.

That's the same thing. Whatever you want to call it, "copyright" or some other word, the end result is that you're wanting to give people the right to control other people's ability to analyze the things that they see on public display. And control what general concepts other people put into future works.

I really don't see how going in that direction is going to lead to a better situation than we have now. Frankly it looks more like a path to a nightmarish corporate-controlled dystopia to me.

Setting aside the hypocrisy, there's simply no "service" to DDoS here. There's hardly even a tool. According to the article:

Hönig told Ars that breaking Glaze was "simple." His team found that "low-effort and 'off-the-shelf' techniques"—such as image upscaling, "using a different finetuning script" when training AI on new data, or "adding Gaussian noise to the images before training"—"are sufficient to create robust mimicry methods that significantly degrade existing protections."

So automatically running a couple of basic Photoshop tools on the image will do it.

I had to check the date on this article because I'm not sure why it's suddenly news, these techniques for neutralizing Glaze have been mentioned since Glaze itself was first introduced. Maybe Hönig just formalized it?

That would "help" by basically introducing the concept of copyright to styles and ideas, which I think would likely have more devastating consequences to art than any AI could possibly inflict.

Whether it's wanted or not is irrelevant. First past the post voting systems inherently move towards a two party system. If you don't want a two-party system then you don't want first-past-the-post voting.

I mainly use LLMs as a programming assistant, as a brainstorming buddy and creative assistant while working on adventures for the tabletop roleplaying campaigns I run, and as a search result summarizer/interpreter over at Bing for the sorts of generic queries I used to use Google for.