Shazbot

Reading these comments has shown me that most users don't realize that not all working artists are using 1099s and filing as an individual. Once you have stable income and assets (e.g. equipment) there are tax and legal benefits to incorporating your business. Removing copyright protections for large corporations will impact successful small artists who just wanted a few tax breaks.

That's fine, but not the primary issue.

At some point these companies will need to get licenses for any copyrighted work that was part of the training data, or start over with public domain works only. The art may be data, but that data has legal owners whose rights grant control over it's use.

Another way to think about is proprietary code. You can see it and learn from it at your leisure. But to use it commercially requires a license, one that clearly defines what can and cannot be done with it, as well as fair compensation.

The short version is that it's a licensing issue. All art is free to view, but the moment you try to integrate it into a commercial product/service you'll owe someone money unless the artist is given fair compensation in some other form.

For example, artists agree to provide a usage license to popular art sites to host and display their works. That license does not transfer to the guy/company scraping portfolios to fuel their AI. Unfortunately, as we can see from the article, AI may be able to generate but it still lacks imagination and inspiration; traits fundamental to creating truly derivative works. When money exchanges hands that denies the artist compensation because the work was never licensed and they are excluded from their portion of the sale.

Another example: I am a photographer uploading my images to a stock image site. As part of ToS I agree to provide a license to host, display, and relicense to buyers on my behalf. The stock site now offers an AI that create new images based on its portfolio. The catch is that all attributed works result in a monetary payment to the artists. When buyers license AI generated works based on my images I get a percentage of the sale. The stock site is legally compliant because it has a license to use my work, and I receive fair compensation when the images are used. The cycle is complete.

It gets trickier in practice, but licensing and compensation is the crux of the matter.

A lot of nuance will be missed without some gradation between "I <3 China" and "Down with Pooh!" For example, if we added "Slightly favorable", "Neutral", and "Slightly unfavorable" we would begin to see just how favorable younger generations are. Rather than presume there is a deep divide on trade policy, if two bars are almost equal, we may see they are largely neutral. Similarly we could see just how favorable their views of TikTok really are by looking at the spread between neutral to "I <3 China!"

I'm convinced the AI had the hand on a loop. It's like watching someone's first presentation in speech and debate class. It will look better eventually, but I doubt it'll figure out the subtle emphasis great body language adds to speech.

Was thinking something similar. What if the whales just don't like the sailors' taste in heavy metal? Have we tried passing the aux to the whales? This could be a valuable learning experience.

The short version is that there are two images and sidecar/xmp file sandwiched into one file. First is the standard dynamic range image, what you'd expect to see from a jpeg. Second is the gain map, an image whose contents include details outside of SDR. The sidecar/xmp file has instructions on how to blend the two images together to create a consistent HDR image across displays.

So its HDR-ish enough for the average person. I like this solution, especially after seeing the hellscape that is DSLR raw format support.

Found an earlier article by El Observador before the legislation passed. Under Uruguay's old laws Spotify, YouTube, an other streaming platforms paid little to nothing in artist royalties. With the new legislation artists will now see fair compensation.

The Guardian does a better job explaining Spotify's problem: do the royalties come from rights holders (I am assuming they're referring to record labels) or the streaming services? The later case they believe will cause them to pay double what they're paying for streaming rights.

The issue just needs to back to Uruguay's government to sort out who pays the artist royalties, or if both labels and streaming share a proportionate responsibility.

VGTG VGS (I am the Shazbot!)

Gayle McLaughlin used to be the Green Party's best example of what they could do at the local level, until she left in 2016 to vote for Bernie Sanders. I'm fairly certain she is the outlier.

Because the target audience likely doesn't know much about computers, and the stock buyer likely knows as little, so the stock buyer can pick whatever looks compelling. The stock photographer is just chasing the trends.

Keywords also create a bias. I doubt most buyers are searching "land grid array", but "soldering iron" is synonymous with anything electronics/hardware related.

There is a chance that documents regarding schedules and other sensitive matters may be in the vehicle. A security leak of that nature could be life threatening to a bigger target. Alternatively, being stranded would leave Naomi vulnerable to kidnapping and assault.

Not saying the shooting was an appropriate response given the location, but the agents are right to be aggravated given the line of work and stakes involved.