Tyler_Zoro

I can't imagine who would hire him. He fucked Unity badly.

AI bots never had rights to waive. Their work is not their work.

This is only partially true. In the US (which tends to set the tone on copyright, but other jurisdictions will weigh in over time) generative AI cannot be considered an "author." That doesn't mean that other forms of rights don't apply to AI generated works (for example, AI generated works may be treated as trade secrets and probably will be accepted for trademark purposes).

Also, all of the usual transformations which can take work from the public domain and result in a new copyrightable derivative also apply.

This is a much more complex issue than just, "AI bots never had rights to waive."

Or at least require a decent font.

Artists, construction workers, administrative clerks, police and video game developers all develop their neural networks in the same way, a method simulated by ANNs.

This is not, "foreign to most artists," it's just that most artists have no idea what the mechanism of learning is.

The method by which you provide input to the network for training isn't the same thing as learning.

Problem is their, "experiment," is resulting in the return of previously eradicated diseases.

There are valid concerns with regard to bidet use. They do result in aerosolized particulates in greater number than results from wiping, which means you are literally breathing more feces.

Is it enough to be problematic? Probably not, but that may also depend on how aggressively/frequently you use them.

See also:

• Ali, Wajid, et al. "Comparing bioaerosol emission after flushing in squat and bidet toilets: Quantitative microbial risk assessment for defecation and hand washing postures." Building and Environment 221 (2022): 109284.
• Abney, S. E., et al. "Toilet hygiene—review and research needs." Journal of Applied Microbiology 131.6 (2021): 2705-2714.

AI/LLMs can train on whatever they want but when then these LLMs are used for commercial reasons to make money, an argument can be made that the copyrighted material has been used in a money making endeavour.

And does this apply equally to all artists who have seen any of my work? Can I start charging all artists born after 1990, for training their neural networks on my work?

Learning is not and has never been considered a financial transaction.

As someone who has worked extensively with the homeless, I've seen quite a few examples of where supposedly anti-homeless takes have been attempts to inject more nuance into discussions than simply being pro- or anti-homeless, both of which are practically meaningless positions.

Looking over their concerns, I'm not sure that they have a leg to stand on. The claim they're making is that they've measured an increase in hate-related tweets (I'll take them at their word on this) and then they associate this with Musk taking over.

They present no evidence for this later claim and do not, as far as I can see, make any attempt to compare against increases in hate among other social media platforms.

Grooming, for example, is one topic they covered. But this is a topic that Republicans have been pushing increasingly as election season spins up. Musk didn't cause that, and that kind of nonsense can be found on Facebook and reddit as well.

I'm inclined to sympathize with an underdog nonprofit, but in this case I just can't see why they expected not to get pushback on such poorly grounded claims

The conservative platform in the US doesn't exist. At this point, conservative is a bucket term for, "not progressive." Most conservatives are on the right, but not all. Most conservatives are Republican leaning, but not all. Most conservatives are opposed to socially progressive change (e.g. expanded LGBT rights) but not all.

Basically any policy position you could point to will fail to capture a significant number of modern conservatives.

I know it can be hard to have your ideas quedtioned, but at least try to be civil. I never questioned your intentions, yet youre acting like im crazy.

I think that's all you. I have never suggested that you are crazy. I suggested that calling Microsoft software "safe" as opposed to Linux which is, "insecure," sounds like trolling. But that's because it sounds like trolling. No crazy stated or implied.

A walled garden is obviously more secure than an open source project because nobody can even see the code to find vulnerabilities in it.

You should learn more about the world of software. Seriously. Security experts have been reasonably unanimous in their support of the "Many Eyes Make All Bugs Shallow" approach to software security for decades, even while they have criticized it as a mantra that ignores the flaws in a presumption of open source software security.

But just to put it in a simple logically sealed box: Microsoft's source code has been leaked several times, and of course, bad actors probably have gained access to it throughout the years without such public knowledge. This means that the fundamental difference between Microsoft's proprietary codebase and open source codebases is not, cannot be the availability of source code. Rather, it is the ability for independent groups to review the code on an ongoing basis.

When the only difference is independent review, the only possible result is higher security.

I understand that you like horses. You ride one every day, and you might have evwn named your horse. The fact is that its time to buy a car.

None of this constitutes a logical refutation to the examples I provided, which are critical components of modern software development and deployment.

Source: I'm a professional software release engineer who has worked with many of the world's largest corporations.

Quality software costs money

For starters, this is unfounded cargo culting. There is no evidence for this at all. I can point to dozens of very expensive piles of crufty old software that no one should ever go near, and also to some free software that is literally foundational to the modern software world.

Money has nothing to do with the quality of software, but you're also mistaken if you think open source software is free. You can pay IBM millions of dollars for a suite of enterprise-ready open source software. Most of the cost in such software is rarely the software itself. It's services, support, training and customization.

Throwing rocks is also simpler than firing a gun, yet modern militaries arent training slingers anymore

But they are succeeding wildly by using largely open source software running on open hardware for drones, networking, battlefield analysis, logistics, etc.