silverbax

Yes, it says, 'don't buy depreciating assets' and 'buy things that appreciate in value, opposed to blowing all your money on consumer items.'

If that sounds like advice you've heard before from many other places, it's because it's not new, it was just wrapped in a good title. It's astonishing how much a book with a good title can sell if it lands just right.

Thanks for your response. I realize I muddied the waters on my question by mentioning exact copies.

My real question is based on the 'everything is a remix' idea. I can create a work 'in the style of Banksy' and sell it. The US copyright and trademark laws state that a work only has to be 10% differentiated from the original in order to be legal to use, so creating a piece of work that 'looks like it could have been created by Banksy, but was not created by Banksy' is legal.

So since most AI does not create exact copies, this is where I find the licensing argument possibly weak. I really haven't seen AI like MidJourney creating exact replicas of works - but admittedly, I am not following every single piece of art created on Midjourney, or Stable Diffusion, or DALL-E, or any of the other platforms, and I'm not an expert in the trademarking laws to the extent I can answer these questions.

I think this is a difficult concept to tackle, but the main argument I see about using existing works as 'training data' is the idea that 'everything is a remix'.

I, as a human, can paint an exact copy of a Picasso work or any other artist. This is not illegal and I have no need of a license to do this. I definitely don't need a license to paint something 'in the style of Picasso', and I can definitely sell it with my own name on it.

But the question is, what about when a computer does the same thing? What is the difference? Speed? Scale? Anyone can view a picture of the Mona Lisa at any time and make their own painting of it. You can't use the image of the Mona Lisa without accreditation and licensing, but what about a recreation of the Mona Lisa?

I'm not really arguing pro-AI here, although it may sound like it. I've just heard the 'licensing' argument many times and I'd really like to hear what the difference between a human copying and a computer copying are, if someone knows more about the law.

So, 95% chance that humans will cause human extinction.

And humans created AI, so even if AI does in the human race, it will still have been humans.

I guess if humans go extinct, it's close to 100% due to humans.

Best part of the article:

"Goel’s scheme was uncovered in an in-depth investigation by reporter Allie Conti in 2019, who detangled the plot after being double-booked at one of his properties in Chicago and receiving a suspicious last-minute cancellation. Conti was contacted by the FBI days after the article was published."

I wish there was more of this. Good investigative journalism has been one of the most powerful weapons in justice, and I fear it's diminishing rapidly.

I imagine Kick.com might leverage this but who knows

This is true, and I also think the 'lack of an algorithm' keeps many people away. While many of us don't want to be force fed a list of 'for you' messages, a lot of people are hoping to get traction for viral tweets and build an audience of people who will get/read/respond to their posts, and that engagement doesn't exist on Mastodon in the same way.

They were close, but the company management felt they were not likely to have sustainable, predictable profits that would match what their investors wanted and they said that they really didn't have any ideas on how to bring in more revenue. When Musk offered them way too much money, it was a no brainer - take heaps of cash, walk away from a loser business, no more stress. That's why they were quick to sue him to force the deal through.

You have to consider that investors in Twitter wanted the company to become Apple, Netflix or Facebook, and that wasn't (isn't) going to happen.

You may be right. I've also noticed it seems the user base has changed over the years. It used to be that many of the people on HN were actually devs and many of them were based in Silicon Valley. Many commenters in years past were closely connected to the companies and people in the bay area tech scene. That's no longer the case.

Recently, I saw a thread regarding Netflix releasing their streaming data - and there were multiple people starting the reasons why Netflix released the data, and they were authoritatively posting that is was a strategic move, or that they were positioning their ad sales teams to have ammunition for 2024.

Then, a few days later, it was revealed that the reason Netflix released their stats was that is was part of the new SAG agreements. Not ONE of the Hacker News 'experts' were even close. Not ONE of them even mentioned the new SAG contract. They had no idea what they were talking about.

Yes, her position is even more defensible than I anticipated. She's clearly correct and following Maine law, as she states.

Yes, and I was inundated with techbros claiming that's not how it works. I mean there is some argument in some cases where you can get some tax write off based on losses, but a true valuation is only what you can sell for.