If one had a warrant then you just force the suspect to give over. Just like forcing them to give fingerprints. Isn’t the whole discussion moot if they have a warrant?

So when you offer a path to get into the phone without a warrant it’s just like breaking into a “house” without a warrant. Technically easy - just go through the window or use the fingerprint from booking. It if we agree with due process either is wrong.

Blaming artists? What are you smoking?

I was asking if it’s Spotify which is relatively new and, as pointed out in the article MUST get this contract or die, or if the problem might be the big three that hold all the power in this negotiation.

Speaking of which. Isn’t it the big three that actually pay the artists. So how would Spotify, if they were so inclined, manage that payout? (It’s an interest idea though. I wonder what would happen if they offered a tip-the-artist button).

How is your “crafty detective work” really any different than sneaking in through a window even though you don’t have a search warrant?

Is Spotify the villain here or is the “big three”? Because it sounds like Spotify is delivering a service and deserves some profit from that.

But what are the big three doing? Seems like they are just skimming because they hold the IP rights. Are they providing any service?

Wait. Baked into your thoughts here is an idea that each middle manager up the chain deserves “more” and that isn’t substantiated.

Managing a bunch of people may/mayn’t be harder than doing a difficult job w/ customers or manual labor or whatever. In some cases it’s a relatively kooshy desk job compared to “being in the trenches”.

Yes, sometimes decisions at higher levels has more ramifications. This is why we want good talent in those roles. But it’s a cultural choice that we decide to pay them 100s of times more.

Not so true. I use a set of “wireless” where the two ears are connected around the back of my neck. (A pair of beatx). These have 12hr battery and I listen a lot. I only kill the batteries on long ski days (the cold probably bring the battery life down a bit).

All my complaints at this point are lack of options in this mostly perfect form factor.

(Better fit in my ears, better sound, etc). This isn’t a wired/wireless problem.

My in-laws are in Arizona where there are scorpions. I’m giving them a powerful blacklight flashlight so we can go look for them when it gets dark out.

I’ve switched to streaming and don’t “buy” anything. If content isn’t available on those few streaming sites I’ll try a different provider but I will not “buy” (eg rent for more money).

It’s all a word game though. I think I actually do have one movie on Amazon. Enough people were over and wanted to watch it that we felt the larger rental fee (“buy” option) was worth it.

ComiXology is an interesting example of this. They have a shitty UI and an odd attempt to emulate the “collector” experience (obviously I think it’s horrible). It’s like a bad drug trip of skeuomorphism. I quickly decided we’d never “buy” anything there either.

“Not incentivized”!

They like using the current word “buy” because people think it means they “own” a digital copy. Since that’s not true what we’re really saying here is that they like lying because that makes them more money.

I think the more honest term is “rent”. A normal rental agreement online is for like 48hrs. This is a rental agreement for a much longer, but unspecified, time period.

You’d think a court case would clear this up. But probably not.

My 2005 forester is much smaller than many other cars out there. It takes a full size mtn bike just fine. The real key is the boxy shape. The EV9 is bigger but not by much and might be worth me checking out. thx.

I really appreciate having the bike inside after a ride allowing me to stop for food or an errand on the way home.

I’ve totally got the money to buy a new car. My 2005 forester is getting long in the tooth and i’m ready to replace it.

I want a smallish car with the same basic features: AWD, 4door, boxy rear so I can toss a full size mtn bike in there, good in the snow, etc.

My distinct impression is that the manufacturers want to sell high end (all the options and $$) but don’t give a shit about usability. Chevy volt comes close but can’t take a bike.

Google’s privacy policy states this is only true for public documents: “use publicly available information to help train Google’s AI models and build products and features like Google Translate, Bard, and Cloud AI capabilities”.

That seems different from your claim.

I don’t see the existence or use of GPT to be a “massive invasion of privacy” — although I agree that the chat logs can be very personal.

What aspects are you concerned about?

I’m positive that lawyers will get super involved and a lot will depend on the various contracts which we don’t have any visibility into. But from an ethical standpoint, the openai board shat in the bathwater and can’t really complain if people get out and move over to a cleaner pool.

LLMs are just regurgitating shit AND that’s most of what we do all day too.

(Speaking from a job as an innovator in a high tech field. Most of us are just doing engineering w/ concepts invented elsewhere. )

And to make matters worse I’m not spending free moments learning more and more computer science — but am instead reading internet stuff about material science. I can enjoy my wide ranging brain but agree that sometimes I wish I was more focused.

“stock will become worthless”

I’m thinking the opposite might happen.

If big companies succeed in capturing the knowledge workers market share and transferring all those salaries into their own profits then it will be reflected in the stock prices of those big companies. People, mostly currently rich people, who own those stock will benefit.

Same as it ever was for other forms of automation or job outsourcing. Why would this be any different?

I’m looking forward to research on that.

I’ve an impression that “people are even nastier than before” has been a result of Trump era politics which reveled in nastiness — which itself appeared to be a pushback from nasty people about Obama being president. Basically its been a growing divide and was made a lot worse when such a prominent political group doubled down on divisiveness as a tribal identity.

I think it predated covid, which certainly made things worse, but I don’t really know what the cause was.

If a person writes a fanfic harry potter 8 it isn’t a problem until they try to sell it or distribute it widely. I think where the legal issues get sticky here are who caused a particular AI generated Harry Potter 8 to be written.

If the AI model attempts to block this behavior. With contract stipulations and guardrails. And if it isn’t advertised as “a harry potter generator” but instead as a general purpose tool… then reasonably the legal liability might be on the user that decides to do this or not. Vs the tool that makes such behavior possible.

Hypothetically what if an AI was trained up that never read Harry Potter. But its pretty darn capable and I feed into it the entire Harry Potter novel(s) as context in my prompt and then ask it to generate an eighth story — is the tool at fault or am I?

Being able to dialog with a book, even to the point of asking the AI to “take on the persona of a character in the book” and support ongoing is substantively a transcendent version of the original. That one can, as a small subset of that transformed version, get quotes from the original work feels like a small part of this new work.

If this had been released for a single work. Like, “here is a star wars AI that can take on the persona of star wars characters” and answer questions about the star wars universe etc. I think its more likely that the position I’m taking here would lose the debate. But this is transformative against the entire set of prior material from books, movies, film, debate, art, science, philosophy etc. It merges and combines all of that. I think the sheer scope of this new thing supports the idea that its truly transformative.

A possible compromise would be to tax AI and use the proceeds to fund a UBI initiative. True, we’d get to argue if high profile authors with IP that catches the public’s attention should get more than just blogger or a random online contributor – but the basic path is that AI is trained on and succeeds by standing on the shoulders of all people. So all people should get some benefits.