rutellthesinful

this might count as destroying evidence

what scenario are you imagining where any of meta’s product offerings are useful to me?

tfw your national strategic reserve of facebook posts is depleted

you can’t just decide to build cutting edge chips

if the DoD needed cutting edge chips but had to purchase them from within the US, all that would happen is their technology would be worse for the next decade(s) until US production could catch up

given the current us procurement strategy of keeping at least a generation or so ahead of its next near-peer, i really doubt that would fly

Biden could have had this 30 minute conversation at literally any point over the past several months

but it’s not the hexbears making these memes…?

the ai:

def is_hamas(target):
  return True

a supernova is caused by nuclear fusion

teleporters don’t work through shields

they should just link the display to the steering wheel

to go left and right you steer accordingly

to go up and down you accelerate or break

Releasing the hostages

oh you mean like the cease fire they offered months ago that was refused?

the solution was staring us in the face the whole time

holding those hostages is basically the last bargaining chip keeping Israel from just bombing all of Gaza into rubble

so in other words, it wouldn’t end it any time, because israel would continue to bomb gaza into rubble?

what is your plan for hamas ending it at any time?

you’re confusing AGI/GI with AI

video game AI is AI

companies don’t update legal documents for fun

you’re also continuing to pointedly ignore what this conversation is actually about, so i’m guessing you don’t really have anything relevant to say in response

CYA is not necessarily the same as changing the substance

why would they need to cover themselves against the scenario you’re arguing they were already covering themselves against?

that could’ve been imagined when writing the original TOSs

or when agreeing to them, which is literally the problem here

you can’t meaningfully consent to every arbitrary hypothetical future scenario

you agreed to that too

you know that a company putting a thing in their terms of service doesn’t make it legally binding, right?

hence why they all suddenly felt the need to update their terms of services

It is not very obviously different, as evidenced by the fact that it’s still being argued

people continuing to use a bad argument doesn’t make it a good one

I’m not expecting them to rule against analysis of public data

tell me you haven’t followed anything about this conversation without telling me you haven’t followed anything about this conversation

the update to the legal contract they have you agree to was in no way legally motivated?

You mean before or after all the sites updated their ToS it so that they were legally in the clear to sell user posts to AI training companies? Implying that they weren’t before? Also, are we exclusively talking about cases where sites gave consent to provide data? Rather than just having it be harvested without their knowledge or consent?

And in any case, you’re missing the key point, which is that legality doesn’t matter in either case. You can’t fight a megacorporation just doing whatever they please unless you happen to have an army of lawyers lying around. Most consumers don’t.

I suspect that people wouldn’t like it if copyright got extended to let IP owners prohibit you from learning from their stuff.

Learning from things is a very obviously a completely different process to feeding data into a server farm.

Quite why proponents of AI-generated media still think this argument holds any water after 2 minutes of thought, let alone after almost a full year to consider it, is beyond me.