archontes

Except in both the real world scenario and your example, no money has been taken out of circulation.

If the entire stock market went to zero tomorrow, exactly the same number of dollars would be circulating.

I can echo this experience. Upgrade to the next major version? No GPU for me. I spent an hour trying to fix it before rolling back to my last backup.

It's a perfectly sensible statement. Bitcoin provides value in the form of moving money from A to B, which is a service people are happy to pay some amount for, and (arguably) being a store of value. Bitcoin's value, derived from its utility, is quantifiable, most easily by comparison to other items that provide the same utility.

Bitcoin has a cost, as well. The undercover economist might tell you that it fails to charge for an externality, namely its climate impact.

It's entirely possible that, were that exernality priced in, the cost to operate bitcoin might exceed the value it provides relative to other providers, which would give it net negative value.

The more robust a system, the more spectacular its eventual failure.

Just more Team B style second-guessing analysis from intellectually compromised people to further partisan political goals.

To echo this, I have a Likebook Mimas, and this is exactly how it's implemented. I realize they're different, but I'm not surprised they're similar.

The Copyright Office finds it too much of a stretch, at least for now.

https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/...

There is also this filing [1] from February regarding the "human authorship" requirement. Thaler was requesting that he be granted the copyright to this work as the AI was "work-for-hire". The Copyright Office found that Thaler “provided no evidence on sufficient creative input or intervention by a human author in the Work.”

So, at least in this instance, the AI created the work with insufficient creative input from a person, and thus has no human author, and is not eligible for copyright.

https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/...

I can't claim copyright on one of your works, because I'm not the author.

I can't claim copyright on a work by an AI, because I'm not the author.

AI created works, like animal-created works [2], lack authorship, and are thus not eligible for copyright at all.

It's being litigated, and might change, but this is the current position of the US Copyright Office [1].

The only AI generated copyrighted work at the moment is a graphic novel, Zarya of the Dawn, and was granted a copyright as 'visual material', not 'visual arts work'. The most likely legal interpretation of which is that the author has added copyrightable material to non-copyrightable material, and obtained a copyright on the addition [3].

[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2022/08/15/dude-who-keeps-suing-to-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.

For what it's worth, you're at least right about me; I truly hate fb, and their simple involvement in a product is sufficient reason not to purchase it unless it's been thoroughly broken by the modding community.

reddit.com/r/hardwareswap will buy 'em

You should check out SmartTube Next

I saved some money buying a pair of "driven once" tires recently. I was told that due to some regulation or another, no reputable tire shop was legally allowed to install them on my vehicle. I was forced to find a mom and pop shop who would do it for cash.

When 'professionalism' degrades experience, a basic lack of professionalism is exactly what people are shopping for.

This is not what this says. This says that the US Copyright Office currently holds that human authorship is a requirement for any work to be copyrighted. They hold that the AI is a form of non-human creator, and thus all of its works are not eligible for copyright.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

It's not entirely unanswered.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-offic...

It's exactly that verification of results and development from snippets and starts into a complete whole that will be the purview of human work. The AI will be replacing (or, rather, preventing the creation of positions for) juniors.

This is absolutely the future, but it's not going to be obscure. You won't have a job if it isn't this or physical.

AIs are going to replace entry level creatives, and experienced users with taste will largely perform selection and the development of good starts to mature designs. And I mean all creatives. Engineers, architects, mathematicians, programmers.

Because it potentially exposes them to exposure/criticism/lawsuit and has no value to them, which means it has negative definite expectation value.

>The attack was so meticulously planned. How could that be the work of an insane person?

This could easily be turned on the owner. "The house was so meticulously planned. How could that be the work of an insane person?"

The thing I see in this article is two people whose actions are rational given a belief in a collapse. It's the belief in the collapse that's insane.

Of course the owner doesn't see the attacker as insane. They share the same premise.

The attacker talked of building a bunker and the CIA tracking him.

"[The owner] instead speculated about political forces that might have it in for him and his family. He talked about hired assassins and past C.I.A. experiments with brainwashing, and suggested that a violent attack on the home of a Second Amendment champion like himself had all the signs of an operation to justify more gun control."

This is so blatant, it simply must be the point of the article.

This is the tragedy of the commons. Its solution is a central authority. How do we get there?

You had such a chance to say "first started to fall from its saddle..."

Easy for a weak currency to buy a worthless one.

He’s transitioned to using biodegradable glitter, at least.

If you develop the software completely at your own expense, and then sell the product to the government, fine.

If the government is paying for the development, the government should own the product of that work.

Well, I prefer not to speculate, but let's assume for a moment that the intelligence community knows some things before the general population does.

I don't think it would be unreasonable to speculate that they knew then what a portion of the general population knows now, namely that a vast disinformation network was disseminating information on behalf of Steve Bannon. This has been analyzed and reported on by social media analysis firm Graphika.

So combine an outlandish story of an abandoned laptop making its way to Rudy Giuliani with the outlandish and serially repeated claims of child pornography and push it out with a known disinformation network, and it has all the hallmarks of a disinformation campaign.

But that's just what I see that leads me to conclude that it's reasonable. Don't expect me to actually explain the intelligence community's behavior.

I suppose I'll also speak to the fact that someone from among the intelligence community vs. Trump's ilk deserves more of the benefit of the doubt. Given Trump and his ilk's long and trivially verifiable history of being brazen liars, I find it exceedingly easy to give the benefit of the doubt to the intelligence community.

I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that you suspect that they are not accurately relating the contents of Guo's whatsapp message?

If I were a betting man, I'd happily bet that they're reporting accurately, and that Bannon and Wengui were, as usual, being unscrupulous. It's not hard to see that claims of serial bullshit-peddlers that contain all the same bullshit as they always contain is bullshit. How much pattern recognition do you need?

Not only that, but the laptop turns out to be verifiable, and it goes to the FBI, which investigates. As normal. I fail to see the outrageous part.

Without knowing what information they had at the time, I will say we now know that there was plenty of disinformation about it being manufactured and spread.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/04/hunter-biden-la...

Perhaps the most concerning thing is that a group of such blatantly unscrupulous people has actual political support in the US.

I feel the need to draw a parallel to Trump's refusal of military aid to Ukraine contingent upon them manufacturing an investigation of Hunter Biden, over which he was impeached.

I think Greenwald's characterization of the letter's contents is a bit disingenuous. The letter makes the claim that recently proposed legislation that would enforce non-discriminatory access would do so in a way that would include foreign adversaries.

Greenwald takes that and elevates the claim to, "Any attempts to restrict Big Tech's monopolistic power would therefore undermine the U.S. fight against Moscow."

The letter makes no such claim. This amounts to a straw man.

Greenwald goes on to rail at the signees for the letter claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation, but while the NYT recently apparently confirmed the genuine nature of Biden's laptop, that letter was still well-founded at the time. A thing can be genuine and have the hallmarks of developed disinformation.

I think Greenwald is being intellectually dishonest.

I agree, but I think we're talking about slightly different things. I was more referring to the judicious division and encapsulation of concepts that we already understand very well.

More science education than science the philosophical pursuit. Which was more the concern of the folks I was tutoring.