They’re literally saying that now.

We’re afraid of the threat that they’ll keep doing what they’re doing right now. Why? They’re already doing it. We’re idiots for letting it affect our decisions.

The best part about this is that UMG WMG and SMG all simultaneously went “you can’t take an artist’s life work and exploit it, that’s unfair, it’s OUR job to take an artist’s life’s work and exploit it”

AI isn’t “like a person” it doesn’t “learn like a person” it doesn’t “think like a person” it’s nothing like a person. It’s a a machine that creates copies of whatever you put into it. It’s a machine that a real person, or group of people, own. These people TAKE all the stuff everyone else created and put it into their copy machine.

In fact it’s really easy to show that it’s a copy machine because the less stuff you put into it the more of a direct copy you get out of it. If you put only one song, or one artist, into it then virtually everything it creates would be direct copyright infringements. If you put all of the worlds music into it the copying becomes more blurred, more complex, more interesting, and therefore more valuable.

Sure AI is a great innovation, but if someone wants to put my work into a copying machine they’re going to have to acquire it from me legally.

No one is against AI, we’re just against the people who own the AI machines stealing our work without paying for it.

I think you’re mixing copyright which protects works and patients which protect inventions as well as the timelines.

Stores in most developed countries, UK included, can refuse service only for legitimate reasons, and they have to do so uniformly based on fair and unbiased rules. If they don’t, they’re at risk of an unlawful discrimination suite.

https://www.milnerslaw.co.uk/can-i-choose-my-customers-the-right-to-refuse-service-in-uk-law

She didn’t do anything that would be considered a “legitimate reason”, and although applied uniformly, it’s difficult to prove that an AI model doesn’t discriminate against protected groups. Especially with so many studies showing the opposite.

I think she has as much standing as anyone to sue for discrimination. There was no legitimate reason to refuse service, AI models famously discriminate against women and minorities, especially when it comes to “lower class” criminal behavior like shoplifting.

That’s just not how medical research works. Modern medicine isn’t built on trying unproven technology on desperate people and using their bodies as a fast track stairway to success. Medical experiments have to ensure human dignity and that doesn’t include “he was desperate enough to say yes” as a rationale.

In an interview with the Journal, Neuralink’s first patient, 29-year-old Noland Arbaugh, opened up about the roller-coaster experience. “I was on such a high and then to be brought down that low. It was very, very hard,” Arbaugh said. “I cried.” He initially asked if Neuralink would perform another surgery to fix or replace the implant, but the company declined, telling him it wanted to wait for more information.

Oh yeah, words of happiness right here! So much QOL, I’m glad you enjoy this.

*break people

This was a known problem that they didn’t fix on the animal models before moving to human trials. They learned nothing. All they did was scrap someone’s brain. But I’m sure it’s no big deal, he was a cripple right, he should be happy to be part of this /s

In an interview with the Journal, Neuralink’s first patient, 29-year-old Noland Arbaugh, opened up about the roller-coaster experience. “I was on such a high and then to be brought down that low. It was very, very hard,” Arbaugh said. “I cried.” He initially asked if Neuralink would perform another surgery to fix or replace the implant, but the company declined, telling him it wanted to wait for more information…

That’s just untrue. There are a lot of options between “give up” and “proceed irresponsibly”. After all the animals they’ve scrapped why are the human subjects having the EXACT SAME PROBLEMS that were identified in the animals. This is Musk’s typical “fail fast” strategy to advance research faster, but in the medical field the failures damage real humans.

Completely irresponsible!

The FDA regulatory failure with neuralink is as bad as the FAA’s failure with Boeing.

Yes, good point. These people are desperate, so we should let a wildly irresponsible company, who during animal testing had identified the thread retraction issue and not fixed it, we should let them experiment on desperate humans because fuck them I guess.

Yeah the guy was able to do something cool for a while, but now he’s quickly getting back to where he was and with bonus bits of metal all over his brain and no way to fix the problem.

I don’t know if that’s a trade he or anyone would have made going in.

They need to stop messing around with this Musk “fail fast” approach, that’s not acceptable in medicine. You can’t speed up your research by endangering the most desperate people in society.

Democrats CAN’T publicize their good for society bills until AFTER they pass. If they do the MAGAs will just turn it into a partisan issue and it’ll never make it through. Look at the border bill!

As long as they keep it quiet, MAGAs stay quiet and uninformed, this lets the rest of the house function reasonably and bipartisan bills are possible.

Oh, there are a lot of Tesla/self driving cars fanboys out here. They’re caught up in the idea that these corporations will save us from traffic congestion/paying taxes for public transit/car accidents/climate change/car ownership/ you name it and self driving cars will solve it. They don’t tend to like it when you try to bring reality to their fantasy.

Self driving cars are a really cool technology. Electric cars as well. However, they don’t solve the fundamental problem of transporting a 200lb person using a 3000lb vehicle. So they’re at best a partial solution. I also don’t really want a future where corporations own more of our stuff and force into monthly payments for heated car seats and “prioritise human life” premium options.

Fanboys gonna fanboy I guess!

Nah, I think most people would crash into a tree rather than clear a sidewalk. Cars are designed to protect you in a crash. Pedestrians don’t have seatbelts, crash zones, and airbags.

No. I don’t think this is a good solution. Companies will put a price on your life and focus on monetary damage reduction. If you’re about to cause more property damage than your life is worth (to Mercedes) they’ll be incentivized to crash the car and kill you rather than crash into the expensive structure.

Your car should be you property, you should be liable for the damage it causes. The car should prioritise your life over monetary damage. If there is some software problem causing the cars to crash, you need to be able to sue Mercedes through a class action lawsuit to recover your losses.

I think we both know that there is no way wars are going to turn out this way. If your country’s “proxies” lose, are you just going to accept the winner’s claim to authority? Give up on democracy and just live under WHATEVER laws the winner imposes on you? Then if you resist you think the winner will just not send their drones in to suppress the resistance?

Not OP, but if you can’t convince a person to kill another person then you shouldn’t be able to kill them anyways.

There are points in historical conflicts, from revolutions to wars, when the very people you picked to fight for your side think “are we the baddies” and just stop fighting. This generally leads to less deaths and sometimes a more democratic outcome.

If you can just get a drone to keep killing when any reasonable person would surrender you’re empowering authoritarianism and tyranny.

And nothing stops the company from using the ipo money to buy back shares, artificially creating demand exactly at the time Trump dumps his shares. If it’s anything like every other Trump venture the only goal is to funnel money to Trump.

I used to be them in my youth. They think it’s like the free market: if I don’t buy any spaghetti sauce because I don’t like classic or meaty then eventually someone will fill the gap and get me the chunky sauce I’ve been wanting. Unfortunately that simply doesn’t work in politics.

Once you see it for what it is, a game of tug of war, you realise that you have to play everytime. Even if the current leader doesn’t want to go as far as you want every step in the right direction is a victory in itself. It also shifts the center for the next election. You get what you want through steadfast victories over time not through instant change towards an ideal world.