donuts

You should try to talk to a doctor or psychiatrist about this habit, especially if it's beginning to bother you and affect your life in other ways.

As for things you can do right away, how about sticking bandaids on your sores, this will help them heal and it'll also keep you away from the area. And don't wait until it gets bad, but even put bandaids on prematurely if it'll get you to stop compulsively messing with your skin.

Another thing is to buy some basic skin care tools. As someone who has the habit of biting my nails, sometimes until they bleed or are painful, I know that biting them can lead to making them rough, which just leads to making me even more compelled to bite the rough bits. For me it can really become a cyclical problem that's also likely driven by anxiety and depression. But by clipping and filling my nails with proper tools I can quickly break the cycle, because my nails will start to generally feel better. So maybe you can do something similar with your skin by exfoliating and using lotion! It's worth a try!

Finally I want to say that cannabis has been good for my personal type/level of anxiety, though I hesitate to recommend it because when though I don't find it addictive I think it maybe isn't great to recommend to someone who is experiencing addictive or compulsive behavior.

In the end I think some combination of therapy, behavior pattern breaking and maybe drugs if necessary, might be able to help you get away from self-harming compulsive behavior. Good luck!

Copyright is an artificial restriction

All laws are artificial restrictions, and copyright law is not exactly some brand new thing.

AI either has to work within the existing framework of copyright law OR the laws have to be drastically overhauled. There's no having it both ways.

What you should be advocating for instead is something like a mandatory GPL-style license, where anybody who uses the model or contributed training data to it has the right to a copy of it that they can run themselves.

I'm a programmer and I actually spend most of my week writing GPLv3 code.

Any experienced programmer knows that GPL code is still subject to copyright. People (or their employer in some cases) own the code the right, and so they have the intellectual right to license that code under GPL or any other license that happens to be compatible with their code base. In other words I have the right to license my code under GPL, but I do not have the right to apply GPL to someone else's code. Look at the top of just about any source code file and you'll find various copyright statements for each individual code author, which are separate from the terms of their open source licensing.

I'm also an artist and musician and, under the current laws as they exist today, I own the copyright to any artwork or music that I happen to create by default. If someone wants to use my artwork or music they can either (a) get a license from me, which will likely involve some kind of payment, or (b) successfully argue that the way they are using my work is considered a "fair use" of copyrighted material. Otherwise I can publish my artwork under a permissive license like public domain or creative commons, and AI companies can use that as they please, because it's baked into the license.

Long story short, whether it's code or artwork, the person who makes the work (or otherwise pays for the work to be made on the basis of a contract) owns the rights to that work. They can choose to license that work permissively (GPL, MIT, CC, public domain, etc.) if they want, but they still hold the copyright. If Entity X wants to use that copyrighted work, they either have to have a valid license or be operating in a way that can be defended as "fair use".

tl;dr: Advocate for open models, not copyright

TLDR: Copyright and open source/data are not at odds with each other. FOSS code is still copyrighted code, and GPL is a relatively restrictive and strict license, which in some cases is good and in other cases not depending on how you look at it. This is not what I'm advocating, but the current copyright framework that everything in the modern world is based on.

If you believe that abolishing copyright entirely to usher in a totally AI-driven future is the best path forward for humanity, then you're entitled to think that.

But personally I'll continue to advocate for technology which empowers people and culture, and not the other way around.

But then you need to factor in that the rights holders would need to agree to that. AI companies don't get to simply decide what peoples work is worth, they need a licensing agreement. (Otherwise they need to successfully argue that what they're doing is fair use.)

And when you add it up and realize that "AI" is a black box based off a training dataset of thousands (if not millions) of pieces of copyrighted artwork, all the sudden you start to see the profit margins on your magical art machine (POOF!) disappear. Oh, won't someone think about the tech venture capitalists?!

If you look at a hundred paintings of faces and then make your own painting of a face, you’re not expected to pay all the artists that you used to get an understanding of what a face looks like.

That's because I'm a human being. I'm acting on my own volition and while I've observed artwork, I've also had decades of life experience observing faces in reality. Also importantly, my ability to produce artwork (and thus my potential to impact the market) is limited and I'm not owned or beholden to any company.

"AI" "art" is different in every way. It is being fed a massive dataset of copyrighted artwork, and has no experiences or observations of its own. It is property, not a fee or independent being. And also, it can churn out a massive amount of content based on its data in no time at all, posing a significant challenge to markets and the livelihood of human creative workers.

All of these are factors in determining whether it's fair to use someone else's copyrighted material, which is why it's fine for a human being to listen to a song and play it from memory, but it's not fine for a tape recorder to do the same (bootlegging).

Btw, I don’t think this is a fair use question, it’s really a question of whether the generated images are derivatives of the training data.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Whether something is derivative or not is one of the key questions used to determine whether the free use of someone else's copyrighted work is fair, as in fair use.

AI training is using people's copyrighted work, and doing so almost exclusively without knowledge, consent, license or permission, and so that's absolutely a question of fair use. They either need to pay for the rights to use people's copyright work OR they need to prove that their use of that work is "fair" under existing laws. (Or we need to change/update/overhaul the copyright system.)

Even if AI companies were to pay the artists and had billions of dollars to do it, each individual artist would receive a tiny amount, because these datasets are so large.

The amount that artists would be paid would be determined by negotiation between the artist (the rights holder) and the entity using their work. AI companies certainly don't get to unilaterally decided what people's art licenses are worth, and different artists would be worth different amounts in the end. There would end up being some kind of licensing contract, which artists would have to agree to.

Take Spotify for example, artists don't get paid a lot per stream and it's arguably not the best deal, but they (or their label) are still agreeing to the terms because they believe it's worth it to be on those platforms. That's not a question of fair use, because there is an explicit licensing agreement being made by both parties. The biggest artists like Taylor Swift negotiate better deals because they make or break the platform.

So back to AI, if all that sounds prohibitively expensive, legally fraught, and generally unsustainable, then that's because it probably is--another huge tech VC bubble just waiting to burst.

Well, why shouldn't they have to pay artists a license to use their work, especially in ways that could drastically affect the market?

There is a thing called copyright, and the exception to that rule is called fair use.

Artwork is copyrighted by default and, under the law, to use someone else's copyrighted works requires a license (that is usually bought). Whether AI training counts as fair use is the question and ultimately that is the point that will need to be proved/justified.

So again, what makes AI "fair use" and why shouldn't companies have to pay a license for their use of copyrighted artwork?

The President has limited authority and cannot make laws unilaterally. For sensible AI regulations and laws we will certainly need Congress to do its job, and clearly they're pretty damn bad at that.

Self-judgement; it sucks and is useless and generally bad for you.

Maybe you're judging yourself for not cooking, but a lot of otherwise functional people can't cook or simply don't want to after a busy or tiring day. Enjoy your easy dinner!

Maybe you're judging yourself for eating a cheap meal on your own, but not every day can be a big party or expensive feast. Don't compare yourself to other people, especially when so much of what people depict on social media is misleading or exaggerated. It's fine to eat on your own (loneliness is a separate issue) and it's good to save money or live within your means.

Maybe you're judging yourself for eating something that you know is low quality or unhealthy, but health and fitness are much more about long term behavior patterns than any single day. As long as we're trying to be active and eat healthy on a regular basis there's nothing wrong with occasional junk food.

Anyway, the point is this: if you feel bad or depressed about something as small as what you're eating for dinner, it might be a sign of deeper problems with depression and self-judgment. And if you find yourself judging yourself, it can be very helpful in my experience to really think about why you're doing it, whether it's a reasonable critique, and whether you'd judge someone else for doing the same thing in your shoes.

You probably wouldn't judge someone else for eating a microwave dinner, so why judge yourself?

Probably nowhere, to be honest.

Today's Israeli-Palestinian conflict dates back thousands of years and combines politics, religion, race, war, and territory all in one.

If you really want to understand this from a non- biased point of view, your best bet is probably wikipedia, where different people with different viewpoints can debate the facts and non-biased writing is somewhat enforced.

The truth is that it's a very complex conflict with innocent people and some very shitty people, on both sides.

Well fuck. I can't wait to try to explain this to my 65 year old parents who basically only watch British tv via VPN...

Machine learning, making just about everything progressively worse.

The most concise and convincing argument about any topic ever.

構わん。