ChemicalRascal

It really doesn't have to be a "fact of life", and it isn't in many places, such as Australia and England -- nations with very similar degrees of economic prosperity, and very similar cultures, to the USA.

The Looker is fantastic. I was particularly disappointed to learn that Blow took it as an insult, though.

Solar wind is not going to just yeet stuff around like that. It'll have some sort of impact, but it's not like, you know, actual wind.

Whisked off into space by what, exactly?

A large swarm of satellites, forming an adjustable solar shade, sitting around L1 for Earth-Sun is likely the best approach we would have. The swarm wouldn't be in a geosynchronous orbit, though, but instead a heliosynchronous one.

Yes, essentially.

Realistically? Something a lot like what we currently have, but with everyone having access to prompt healthcare, living in comfort. A focus on community and cooperation being more dominant in the culture, rather than competition and comparison.

Exactly this. On Reddit, you would end up with stuff like r/TrueStarWars and such as a result of bad mods moderating badly — but those communities would have a harder time taking off due to the name being less searchable, and individuals needing to be "in the know" about why one sub has "true" out the front.

With everyone being able to take the same community name, just across different instances, there's a potential for a better, more competitive process to take place instead. It won't be perfect — @starwars is going to be in a much more immediately advantaged position than, say, @starwars — but in theory the playing field is closer to being level.

I just learned to accept that I am weird and filthy.

I suggest reading my entire comment.

I did, buddy. You're just wrong. You can copyright data. A work can be "just data". Again, we're not talking about a set of measurements of the natural world.

It's only a work if your brain is a work. (...) The weights that make up a neural network represent encodings into neurons, and as such should be treated the same way as neural encodings in a brain.

Okay, I see how you have the hot take that a generative model is brain-like to you, but that's a hot take -- it's not a legally accepted fact that a trained model is not a work.

You understand that, right? You do get that this hasn't been debated in court, and what you think is correct is not necessarily how the legal system will rule on the matter, yeah?

Because the argument that a trained generative model is a work is also pretty coherent. It's a thing that you can distribute, even monetise. It isn't a person, it isn't an intelligence, it's essentially part of a program, and it's the output of labour performed by someone.

The fact that something models neurons does not mean it can't be a work. That's not... coherent. You've jumped from A to Z and your argument to get there is "human brain has neurons". Like, okay? Does that somehow mean anything that is vaguely neuron-like is not a work? So if I make a mechanical neuron, I can't copyright it? I can't patent it?

No, that's absurd.

Also, neural network weights are just a bunch of numbers, and I'm pretty sure data can't be copyrighted.

Just being "a bunch of numbers" doesn't stop it from being a work, it doesn't stop it from being a derivative work, and you absolutely can copyright data -- all digitally encoded works are "just data".

A trained AI is not a measurement of the natural world. It is a thing that has been created from the processing of other things -- in the common sense of it the word, it is derivative of those works. What remains, IMO, is the question of if it would be a work, or something else, and if that something else would be distinct enough from being a work to matter.

No, I know how these neural nets are trained and how they're structured. They really don't contain any identifiable copies of the material used to train it.

Go back and read my comment in full, please. I addressed that directly.