It seems that AI without human guidance is mostly useless. So far we've seen that you need a human operator, and typically one with decent domain-specific knowledge/skill to get an AI to produce anything worthwhile. That guidance is essentially human authorship.
Most of the time, human guidance occurs before the AI generates anything. For example, ChatGPT was trained with human involvement, but most of what it writes will not be reviewed and edited by a human.
However, an identifiable component of the text must have been written by a human author in order to claim copyright. So most of what ChatGPT writes cannot be copyrighted. It would only be eligible for copyright if a human reviewed and edited what ChatGPT had written.
There is an underlying tension in that copyright is explicitly meant to be an incentive for creative efforts made by humans (who would otherwise be doing something else), and AI is generally designed to replace humans engaged in creative efforts.
We heard about that first when it happened, and nothing at all was done when it was just some old lady hurt. (edit: Even with bodycam) THEN the laughing video came out a few days later and THEN the public outcry ramped up enough they had no choice. Only then was there any action against those officers.
I am very appreciative of the fact that we had a misunderstanding but kept it civil, unlike on The Site That Shall Not Be Named, where it would have brought out the worst. Man, that place was awful. I love the fediverse!
Assuming that the site name satisfies /R.{4}t/i, Lemmy < centralized [The Site That Shall Not Be Named] replacements < The Site That Shall Not Be Named
Genuine question: don’t the jury need to be unbiased? Presumably already hard enough with someone like trump, but wouldn’t a death threat create reasonable concerns about bias against the side that does the threatening?
IANAL but my understanding is the grand jury’s job is to decide whether or not to indict based on evidence presented to them. Once indictment is recommended by the grand jury, and a plea of “not guilty” is made then it goes to trial, where a new trial jury is selected. The original grand jury members aren’t even part of the actual trial if an indictment is recommended. In this instance, the grand jury recommended indictments and soon after their info was leaked and then threats were made. There shouldn’t have been any pressured bias due to death threats in the decision to indict, because it happened after the fact.
Just a quick clarification: The names weren’t leaked, as Georgia law requires the listing of juror names, ostensibly for reasons of transparency, which I think is pretty dangerous in practice, as we see now.
Thanks for the clarification. The names are indeed listed in the indictment. What was being shared is their pictures and social media profiles for harassment purposes.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.