Quoting: Purple Library GuySo my point there is, the morality was built around the policy, not the other way around, and this will continue to be the way things work; we will end up with the policy that works (for the strongest political interests) and any moral issues will be adjusted to fit.

I don't agree with this completely. The concept of the laborer being worthy of his hire is in religious text which is pretty old. The printing press example shows how policy lags behind technology. There is a period of self governing until enough people complain of unfair or hurtful practices (which seem inevitable unfortunately), then rules get invented.

I don't want to bring religious morals versus political and economical influence into the conversation; I merely used it to point out how old the idea of protecting someone's rightful pay is.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

A lot of it simply comes down to convenience though right? Plenty of us pay for Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime and so on and so on — so we can just quickly jump into a show or a movie they have available.

SO TRUE. The world is getting lazier and lazier. Many people I know have expressed they buy digital versions of media because they don't want to put a disc in their device.

Am I a hypocrite? Well... back in the DVD + serial key days, I would rip the DVD and then mount it so I didn't have to use the disc. But I did own the disc and serial. So, I certainly feel the same desire for convenience, but not a hypocrite in execution. I buy PS5 discs instead of digital, the exception being if digital is $5 or under. It's an amount I'm willing to lose.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: fenglengshun

Quoting: slaapliedjeThe proper place for the X button, looking at you, Apple! I've looked up how to flip that to the other side on macOS, and apparently the Almighty Apple has spoken and does not allow such things... All other operating systems I've ever used has it on the right side... but not macOS...

Eh. I prefer top left window-control buttons. It especially made sense with a Unity-like UX, where you have the window-controls pinned on the top panel as well, and you have the behaviour of hiding titlebar when a window is maximized.

Top left just felt natural for me. Also, kinda corresponds to the location of Esc button and most back/burger menu buttons positions.

The beauty is, most operating system / desktop environments give you the option. Not so on macOS.

Yeah, I'm considering switching my Plasma buttons to left side since I work with a Mac a lot, but doing so gives me this weird feeling that I was defeated. Decisions, decisions... :P

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: 14I think I was misunderstood. We all watch movies, play video games, and read books, right? That influences our imagination. So when you make your own creative work, it is influenced by all those things. This is undeniable. Sigh.

Many know you meant that(it's a common argument made in this kind of discussions).
Penglin argued in reaction that although we do as you described, we pay for the privilege of reading, watching and playing things before getting inspired, which OpenAI didn't do(they just downloaded the content from piracy sites).

I argued that making things that contain unlicensed copyrighted elements is always illegal including for entities and "proofed" that with the legal standing fan fiction.
Someone correctly pointed out to me that in the case of fan fiction it's sometimes not illegal(if you can show you didn't negatively affect the sale of the original).
I argued that OpenAI still wouldn't be able to claim that, because they did negatively affect the sale of the original.

Someone else(too lazy to check who) argued that, that is only a persuasive argument to the law if you treat the AI as a separate entity capable and the law only treats citizens and some kinds of companies as entities. The AI is neither of these things.
This is an effect of the context dependence of the law, which I find hard to understand, so I'm assuming you also think so.
This my attempt at explaining it.
You know how wNK3c5Z5 is a random generated string and thus useful for security, wNK3c5Z5 isn't secure, because it's a copy of the first one and thus not randomly generated.
The strings are identical and still one is secure and the other isn't. It's because of the context one is randomly generated, while the other isn't.
The law deals with these kind of differences all the time.
If I make an AI that exactly behaves and looks likes exactly like some human with a driving license the AI still can't be allowed to drive alone, because it isn't an adult citizen with a driving license and thus can't be held responsible for its deeds.
If I smash a soft wax stamp in a statue and use the stamp as a mall to make more of that statue I'm also violating copyright although I didn't have to make any of the movements the artist.

Sorry you went through the trouble to make a large post, but appreciate it.

I don't have a strong opinion in favor of AI here. But I like trying to understand why each perspective somehow makes sense to the owner of that perspective. My choice words I think there is an argument is me saying there is a compelling-enough argument to have an argument, but I don't think I'd be the one playing representative because I haven't chosen a side.

Out of the handful of debatable elements you pointed out, in my own words, I think the most compelling argument content creators of any kind have against current AI usage in terms of copyrighted material is that AI chat bots can effectively become a proxy to same information and harm creator profits by eliminating sales of said content as well as ad traffic for "free" content. Acting as a proxy is like hijacking in a way... mm, let's say mimicking or miming. In another way, you could say it is redistribution, which is a clear topic in copyright law as far as I know. Yeah, I think if lawyers can convince judges that AI falls under redistribution of copyrighted material, that is winnable.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I think I was misunderstood. We all watch movies, play video games, and read books, right? That influences our imagination. So when you make your own creative work, it is influenced by all those things. This is undeniable. Sigh.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I guess this isn't my thing seeing as I own 0 of the games with this tag.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I just need the 6800 XT to drop to a price I'm willing to pay.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It looks wonderful, but like others, I also noticed textures and entire models were replaced as well, so it's nasty salesmanship from whoever made the video.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: grigi

Quoting: TheSHEEEPI don't have an objection to companies downsizing for cost reasons.
Just makes business sense in some situations.

What makes this so crazy is that they didn't lose profitability due to "the market changing" or inflation or anything.
Their leadership made absolutely insane decisions that cost them dearly, but the ones to pay the consequences of that are the normal staff, while the leadership remains absurdly overpaid.

That's the part that's just really grinding my gears.

I lived through a similar thing. New CEO, new ideas. We tell him some of those ideas are built on bad foundations. He systematically replaces the board until anyone that knows the market is out-shouted by the yes-men.

What happened? The company shed over 10000 jobs in 3 years until it filed for bankruptcy.

And all that happened is that all the board members were paid off, but literally every other employee got pink checks and had to re-apply for their jobs at half the salary.

I was lucky in that I decided to leave about a year before the big implosion. It was a hellish work environment being out shouted and lied to by sociopathic yes men all the time. Sorry, I think I struck my own nerves there :dizzy:

You were not simply lucky; you left due to your judgment of the leadership. Everyone has the same opportunity, and thus I don't have the opinion that everyone laid off was blindsided and 100% blameless in these situations. If you want a job where stability is #1, work for the IRS or a funeral home. Not fun? Want more money? Then some risk has to be accepted.

Leaders are only leaders when they have followers.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I said it before, I think companies' models are going to become the sweet sauce. If OpenAI loses this copyright case, they will need to start paying for copyrighted content to be ingested into their model. It will be a content subscription just like streaming media companies.

I think there is an argument that reading copyrighted material is same as a human doing so and then writing their own creative work, however it doesn't stand against companies' acceptable use policies which often deny or limit scraping by bots. This is exactly the same as bot scraping, where the difference between typical usage is a machine doing it as well as the volume (resource expense).

View this comment - View article - View full comments