All I can say is, well deserved.

This has to be satire lmao, “Joe Byedon” I meaaaaaan

Are you in the US? Then either guns or lawsuit

Both can be true!

Friendly reminder to not use pokey thing into those grills, use a mounting putty, stick it on there and be satisfied when you pull it off. Same thing if you have wireless earbuds where one ear is a different volume.

Two headsets ago I bought a G933 from Logitech, mainly because it had an AUX input on the USB-dongle which I thought was pretty neat, but that one had big unnecessary RBG strips on the sides of the earpiece. The most ridiculous usage of RGB I had seen till date. But I programmed an interface between CSGO and the RGB on the headset to indicate my health so the people watching from behind us at a lan could see it.

Anyway, I’ve always preferred white LED’s and RGB can rarely replicate pure white.

Eta when?

At what point does human creative expression become a sentient being?

Exactly! When you pay for a service you own the copyright, like having a photoshop license. I meant in other situations where it’s free or provided as research tools to engineers under a company.

The existing legal precedence

I know that’s how law works, but there is no precedent for AI at this scale and will only get worse. What if AI gains full sentience? Are they a legally recognised person? Do they have rights and do they not own the copyright themselves? All very good questions with no precedent in law.

Oh yeah I was just showing an example! There is much more to it then just commercial, but it’s a very quick way get the attention of businesses. Whether it be direct or indirect.

I’ll compare it with the recent takedown of the Switch emulator Yuzu. It’s my understanding they actively solicited donations and piracy, both of which could be seen as commercial activities. Which in a project of that scale the latter was their downfall, meanwhile Ryujinx is still up and running. But we’ll see if that remains true.

Really? Even if your artwork isn’t used in a commercial way?

Not necessarily, if a model is public domain, there could still be a lot of proprietary elements used in interpreting that model and actually running it. If you own the hardware and generate something using AI, I’d say the copyright goes to you. You use AI as the brush to paint your painting and the painting belongs to you, but if a company allows you to use their canvas and their painting tools, it should go to them.

Great articles, first is one of the best I’ve read about the implications of fair use. I argue that because of the broadness of human knowledge that is interpreted through these models, everyone is entitled to have unrestricted access to them (not the servers or algorithms used, the models). I’ll dub it “the library of the digital age” argument.

“Publicly available data” - I wonder if that includes Disney’s catalogue? Or Nintendo’s IP? I think they are veeery selective about their “Publicly available data”, it also implies the only requirement for such training data is that it is publicly available, which almost every piece of media ever? How an AI model isn’t public domain by default baffles me.

Oh for sure, the UX is horrible, but I find the UI quite pretty. Could definitely use better playlist managegement, this could be the same interface more geared towards music managing.

Those aren’t Spotify screenshots? I am very impressed.

Holy shit from 16 min on it’s absolute mayhem, also killing friendly npc’s to skip the cutscenes is hilarious.