Hacksaw

The best part about this is that UMG WMG and SMG all simultaneously went "you can't take an artist's life work and exploit it, that's unfair, it's OUR job to take an artist's life's work and exploit it"

AI isn't "like a person" it doesn't "learn like a person" it doesn't "think like a person" it's nothing like a person. It's a a machine that creates copies of whatever you put into it. It's a machine that a real person, or group of people, own. These people TAKE all the stuff everyone else created and put it into their copy machine.

In fact it's really easy to show that it's a copy machine because the less stuff you put into it the more of a direct copy you get out of it. If you put only one song, or one artist, into it then virtually everything it creates would be direct copyright infringements. If you put all of the worlds music into it the copying becomes more blurred, more complex, more interesting, and therefore more valuable.

Sure AI is a great innovation, but if someone wants to put my work into a copying machine they're going to have to acquire it from me legally.

No one is against AI, we're just against the people who own the AI machines stealing our work without paying for it.

I chose NOT diddling kids!

I think you're mixing copyright which protects works and patients which protect inventions as well as the timelines.

Stores in most developed countries, UK included, can refuse service only for legitimate reasons, and they have to do so uniformly based on fair and unbiased rules. If they don't, they're at risk of an unlawful discrimination suite.

https://www.milnerslaw.co.uk/can-i-choose-my-customers-the-right-to-refuse-service-in-uk-law

She didn't do anything that would be considered a "legitimate reason", and although applied uniformly, it's difficult to prove that an AI model doesn't discriminate against protected groups. Especially with so many studies showing the opposite.

I think she has as much standing as anyone to sue for discrimination. There was no legitimate reason to refuse service, AI models famously discriminate against women and minorities, especially when it comes to "lower class" criminal behavior like shoplifting.

That's how a lot of stuff works, true. I don't agree that can work with violence. I also don't appreciate the conceptual response to very practical questions.

I live in a peaceful society. I wouldn't want my neighbour to be able to use violence because my tree dropped it's leaves on his side of the lawn. I wouldn't want an alternate police force hired and paid by a group of white supremacists (current statistics aside) to enforce laws in a biased manner. Having other corporations able to use violence is an absolute dystopian nightmare and is 100% the cause of every dystopian fantasy world. If the government WASN'T empowered with violence then there is nothing to stop the above 3 scenarios. So I'm not sure what other "equalizing distribution" you're imagining and I'm not certain a better one exists.

I am open minded, which is why I asked those 3 very specific questions. If your have a better idea I'm all ears. If your idea is just to open up the floodgates and hope for the best because that will equalise access to violence and more equal is more better, then I will keep treating libertarian ideology as a threat to civilization. Mostly ideas that sound nice, but no practicable solutions that don't destroy society. Like communism.

Dude what the fuck? You do NOT want it to be legal for people to use violence to enforce their views on others. That's what "might makes right" is and it's how gangs are run. It's brutal. Every positive consequence you imagine will be completely dwarfed by the depths of human violence and depravity this would unleash.

That's just not how medical research works. Modern medicine isn't built on trying unproven technology on desperate people and using their bodies as a fast track stairway to success. Medical experiments have to ensure human dignity and that doesn't include "he was desperate enough to say yes" as a rationale.

In an interview with the Journal, Neuralink’s first patient, 29-year-old Noland Arbaugh, opened up about the roller-coaster experience. “I was on such a high and then to be brought down that low. It was very, very hard,” Arbaugh said. “I cried.” He initially asked if Neuralink would perform another surgery to fix or replace the implant, but the company declined, telling him it wanted to wait for more information.

Oh yeah, words of happiness right here! So much QOL, I'm glad you enjoy this.

*break people

This was a known problem that they didn't fix on the animal models before moving to human trials. They learned nothing. All they did was scrap someone's brain. But I'm sure it's no big deal, he was a cripple right, he should be happy to be part of this /s

In an interview with the Journal, Neuralink's first patient, 29-year-old Noland Arbaugh, opened up about the roller-coaster experience. "I was on such a high and then to be brought down that low. It was very, very hard," Arbaugh said. "I cried." He initially asked if Neuralink would perform another surgery to fix or replace the implant, but the company declined, telling him it wanted to wait for more information..