tb_

tb_ , 5 months ago to news in United Airlines raises checked bag fee $5, following American

Privatize the gains, socialize the losses

Oh wait but it’s wrong when the people get government support, that’s socialism!

tb_ , 5 months ago to games in Nvidia’s finally replacing GeForce Experience with this all-in-one ‘Nvidia app’ - The Verge

Given how atrocious it is to download drivers from their website…

You’re mostly right but damn, their offerings aren’t pretty.

tb_ , 5 months ago to technology in Why The New York Times might win its copyright lawsuit against OpenAI

You do not read long posts, remember?

“though it is true I initially didn’t […]”

That said, I read it again, I suppose I have been uncharitable. You make some good points, and perpetual ironclad intellectual property hoarded by massive corporations isn’t something my current views adequately address.
But just because I don’t have an answer to that doesn’t mean I have to agree with AI companies scraping every last corner of the internet for their datasets.

You say you disagree with property owners always receiving compensation for their work being used.
To some extent I agree with your disagreement.

Even so I cannot view AI companies taking the work of whomever they please without compensation as morally justifiable. Especially if those artists are small and have no way to defend themselves.
IP hoarders are a separate issue.

tb_ , 5 months ago to technology in Why The New York Times might win its copyright lawsuit against OpenAI

What assumption am I making about you?

Me being some radical right-winger, Mr. or Ms. AI-techbro.

The problem is that you are acting on gut feeling.

Is your “I don’t mind my work being used in someone else’s venture” any less of a gut feeling? I believe not.

You haven’t even thought about where it will actually take you.

More of these baseless assumptions of yours, but going into future ramifications I may or may not have considered isn’t part of this conversation.
You didn’t even respond to my main points and instead latched onto what seems to you to be the weakest part of my argument. Are you reading my replies properly?

Companies taking whatever they please, be it data otherwise, without oversight is problematic. Regardless of how much you personally enjoy being trampled on for the sake of “progress” or not.

tb_ , 5 months ago to technology in Why The New York Times might win its copyright lawsuit against OpenAI

I had bing chat spit back at me the question I posted on stack overflow the day before. You know, the example code I provided which didn’t exactly work as I wanted.

tb_ , 5 months ago to technology in Why The New York Times might win its copyright lawsuit against OpenAI

You are making baseless assumptions about me, though it is true I initially didn’t particularly care to read the entirety of your comment.

Ultimately I don’t care for the NYT. What I do care about is the starving artist whose work is being ripped off. I care about web crawlers not respecting any wishes of the creator and consent being forcefully taken.
If they wish not to partake that wish ought to be respected. Better yet, it should be opt-in before your works are allowed to be used.

But the current society isn’t about being fair. They can store your data for advertisement because you surely have nothing to hide and cannot be affected by targeted propaganda. They can use your work for their own means and charge a profit. You get to be happy you’re allowed to exist at all to lick their boots. You will own nothing and be happy.

Cool, you’re fine with your work being used by massive corporations to make their own profits off of your work. Not everyone may agree to that, and an artist should be able to control how their work is appropriated for some time.

I suppose it’s my fault for not being able to voice these awful gut feelings properly. You equate my view of personal liberty with some sort fascist mindset. You are wrong. And you who cares not for their own work does not get to import that view onto others.

Next you’ll call me wrong, saying you do care about your work. Which I’m sure you do, my statement was hyperbolic to some extent. But surely you must understand that your view of some sort of ROI cap does not match that of the corporations taking as they please. OpenAI suddenly stopped being so open when their model became popular.

tb_ , 5 months ago to technology in Why The New York Times might win its copyright lawsuit against OpenAI

You seem to have misinterpreted my “alignment”, if you will. I do agree my arguments here leaned pretty heavily on the corporate side.

But many of these AI are either run or backed by these same massive corporations. Corporations who staunchly defend their own copyright, yet don’t mind taking from the little guy and breaking their own unfair rules even further.

I am, generally, anti-AI. As may have been apparent. I wish not for my words to be vacuumed up into a black box to be spat back out at me.
Whilst I think some amount of copyright is fair, 80 years is far too many. Putting a cap on how profiting any property can be is an interesting take.

But that’s not part of the conversation. It’s wrong for AI companies to take whatever data they can get their hands on just because it’s out there for human eyes to read. Whether that content has outlived its newsworthy usefulness or not.

tb_ , 5 months ago to technology in Why The New York Times might win its copyright lawsuit against OpenAI

That’s exactly what you wrote?

In order for this to work, the NYT needs to make back the money that they have paid these people, plus some profit for the owners. This has already been achieved for any issue that’s older than a few days. Before the internet, either an issue sold enough or it didn’t. No one cares about yesterday’s news. I doubt the internet changes that very much. That’s what I mean by “it’s already paid for”.

Your argument was that the sources that get scraped have already been paid for. I don’t see how it’s any different for newspapers than it is for movies and such. It’s not like news agencies are eternally profitable and never go bankrupt. Nor do I want corporations to profit for free off the comments I wrote, even if I may or may not have signed my soul away in some EULA nobody reads.

tb_ , 5 months ago to games in Kingmakers - Official Announcement Trailer

Basically Ultimate Epic Battle Simulator

tb_ , 5 months ago to technology in Why The New York Times might win its copyright lawsuit against OpenAI

isn’t a strong argument.

Because “no it’s totally not like that” is?

tb_ , 5 months ago to technology in Why The New York Times might win its copyright lawsuit against OpenAI

“They aren’t getting away with plagiarism”

• “There has been some plagiarism”

“Some plagiarism doesn’t count!”

tb_ , 5 months ago to technology in Why The New York Times might win its copyright lawsuit against OpenAI

In order for this to work, the NYT needs to make back the money that they have paid these people, plus some profit for the owners. This has already been achieved for any issue that’s older than a few days. Before the internet, either an issue sold enough or it didn’t. No one cares about yesterday’s news. I doubt the internet changes that very much. That’s what I mean by “it’s already paid for”.

So the moment a property breaks even, + makes “some profit”, you should no longer need to pay for it? Only when people still “care”, in that case they should pay?

Just because it’s a news article or a comment doesn’t mean it’s fair game all of a sudden.

And movies can make back their budget in the opening week(end) when they’re popular. The timeframe is irrelevant for your argument. At least if we’re talking about anything less than a decade or two old, because…

I think it is absolutely ridiculous that corporations can still extract money for something that was made in the 1940ies and even earlier.

… with this I do agree.

tb_ , 5 months ago to games in ELDEN RING Shadow of the Erdtree | Official Gameplay Reveal Trailer in 5 hours [if this post is +5h, you're good to go]

TL;DW: June

tb_ , 5 months ago to technology in Why The New York Times might win its copyright lawsuit against OpenAI

There should not be a problem with that. The people who work on training datasets are already being paid.

How are the people whose articles and comments are being scraped compensated?

Because the creation of all that is already paid for

“This perfectly good movie has already been made and paid for, that means I can watch it without compensating the studio.”

I do not agree with Reddit selling the comments of their users. Even so that’s a ridiculous statement to make.

tb_ , 5 months ago to news in Many believe the founders wanted a Christian America. Some want the government to declare one now

Given how many “interpret” the Bible, you bet they can “interpret” the Constitution as well…