If anyone deserves copyright over a photo, it’s the people that had their work photographed without permission. Then, the most deserving of the copyright are the camera and film manufacturers that made photography possible.

I think this is an angle that isn’t pften taken. The advent of photography was a very similar situation to the current advent of AI.

However, there are some crucial differences. For example, a photo can realistically be taken for personal use, which is either protected by law, or at least tolerated. AI, on the other hand, doesn’t have this going for it (you wouldn’t really go to the trouble of training an AI model for personal use). Even if the model and everything else is fully transparent and open source, it’s still gobbling up copyrighted data for commercial purposes - the model’s authors or the users’. Luckily, there is no AI fair use carveout (and I hope there won’t ever be one).

Another thing I’d like to point out: in the vast majority of european legal systems copyright isn’t called “Copyright”, but “Authors’ rights”, i.e. its primary purpose isn’t to restrict copying as much as it’s protect the interests of the author (not publisher/corporation, although this unfortunately got bastardised a while ago).

I can only hope the EU takes a reasonable approach to AI (that is, ban it from gobbling copyrighted work, require current “tainted” models be purged along with corporations paying reparations to the authors, as well as banning EULA clauses along the lines of “by signing up we get to feed all your information into the AI”).

By my first comment I was trying to point out the fact that the “time invested” argument isn’t that strong. That doesn’t mean there aren’t better arguments or that I don’t agree with the general idea, just that we need better arguments if we want to win this fight.

A game you paid for. On a console you also paid for. And you also pay for PS Plus as well.

While some just snap a photo. And both are equally copyrightable

Going by US laws (life + 70 years), all of Picasso’s art is all still copyright protected in the US until 2043, so it’s even less of a difference than you may realize.

Well, they are half-eaten on the back, so checks out.

Not everyone believes an AI bubble is forming

Well, the AI’s not wrong. No one believes a bubble is forming, since it’s already about to burst!

It’s not about ABS, its about BS like an everything touchscreen, tracking, bullshit subscriptions and the like

It is about them and their honour.

However, their honour isn’t how they’re percieved and treated by others, it’s how they themselves act. They’re the first ones who should show honour and dignity towards their defendants, clerks, etc.

Angry fits like this one just show the judge got corrupted by power and should either be given time to reflect or disbarred.

No.

As the AI said, the l in “LLM” (Large Language Model) stands for lntelligence. (Notice the “l” is a lowercase l).

So, AI is very lntelligent. Gotta give it props for that.

Therefore, AI is very dumb

The horse knows and it doesnt care

Which clearly gives them a carte blanche to genocide and apartheid

You’re kidding, right?

Both have to be more than a pebble, right?

Doesn’t Windows give a popup saying “Do you want to extract the folder before running the executable” anymore?

Edit: typo (funning to running)

Dionysius is the smurf in the picture

it’s better to avoid using it and report web compatibility problems

It would be if sites were truly incompatible, but developers know Chrome/Chromium dominates the market and instead of bothering checking compatibility with firefox, they just preemptively block Firefox since that’s an easier “fix”.

That’s assuming the vendor isn’t Google and doesn’t have a vested interest in Chrome hegemony.

Still. Finding a site that doesn’t work and reporting it absolutely is the way to go.

You can bet 300 new uBlock replacements to spring up practically overnight, some of them scams, reducing trust in the Google ecostystem.

Unfortunately it’s a bigger problem.

Google doesn’t plan to block uBlock Origin itself, but the APIs it uses to integrate into Chrome in order to function. This will effectively disable all adblockers on Chrome. uBlock won’t be removed from the Chrome extension store, it will just have 90% of its functionality removed.

Additionally, this isn’t a Chrome-only change, but a change in the open source Chromium, an upstream browser of Chrome all other Chrome-based browsers use (essentially everything aside from Firefox and Safari themselves).

The change itself is involved in changing the browser’s “Manifest”, a list of allowed API calls for extensions. The current one is called Manifest v2 and the new one was dubbed Manifest v3.

Theorethically Chromium-based browsers could “backport” Manifest v2 due to the open source nature of Chromium. However that is unlikely as it’s projected to take a lot of resources to change, due mostly to security implications of the change.

Vendors of other Chromium-based browsers themselves have little to gain from making the change aside from name recognition for “allowing uBlock”, which most users either wouldn’t care for or already use Firefox, so the loss for Google isn’t projected to be large, just as the gains for other vendors.

TLDR: uBlock won’t be removed from the Chrome extension store, but the mechanisms through which it blocks ads will be blocked. The block isn’t a change in Chrome but in Chromium and affects all Chromium-based brosers (all except Firefox and Safari). Other vendors could change that to allow adblockers but it’s projected to take a lot of time and resources.

I’m against the death penalty, so corporate disbandanment

That’s why we need right to repair

4. When the patent expires every manufacturer will be using it if they’re forced to by legislation