FriendOfDeSoto

They would have to try fighting it on non-trademark grounds. However, being able to point at having been awarded one afterwards may carry some weight there as well. My impression is that their strategy doesn’t rest on this alone.

The strategy behind this is also to be able to sue after the fact to get a cut of whatever was created from stuff that ought to have been protected but wasn’t. It’s not just a clip of him doing triple alrights that he applied for TM for. There is also one of him sitting down, one of him standing up. They tried to cover a whole spread of sora et. al. generated bullshit. It’s an interesting strategy that is only necessary because the law on the books lags behind the developments in image or video generation. It may not work at all but it’ll be a success if they win one case with this.

Jenson Huang is doing a lot of damage there.

In terms of how this is reported, at what point does this become streisanding by proxy? I think anything from the Melon deserves to be scrutinized and called out for missteps and mistakes. At this point, I personally don’t mind if the media is overly critical about any of that because of his behavior. And what I’m reading about Grok is terrible and makes me glad I left Twitter after he bought it. At the same time, these “put X in a bikini” headlines must be drawing creeps towards Grok in droves. It’s ideal marketing to get them interested. Maybe there isn’t a way to shine the necessary light on this that doesn’t also attract the moths. I just think in about ten years’ time we will get a lot of “I started undressing people against their will on Grok and then got hooked” defenses in court rooms. And I wonder if there would’ve been a way to report on it without causing more harm at the same time.

I wish you nothing but THE BEST, both in your private life and professionally.

ChatGPT, the trustworthy platform that’s never leaked a chat and beyond that is in the news with nothing but glorious success and not a foot set wrong, no pending lawsuits? What harm could there be? Punch your ticket and hop onto the loony train.

It’s a good bellwether. If you connect all these apps and upload your actual medical records to ChatGPT, we know that you are clinically insane.

I would say it shows signs of both. It’s a financial bubble built on top of at least a partial scam. And what will be left behind after a possible crash will be more useful than Theranos. Some of this LLM stuff is really useful, e.g. if you’re blind or dyslexic or need Alexa to understand you. The image and video generators less so but we will get to use of the stuff that takes advantage of those as well. I think the comparison with the railway pioneers of old is more apt. They built up the network that others profited of and got rich. Until they were blasted out of the sky by airplanes.

… back button hijack is starting to rear its ugly head again.

Are you basing this statement on this alleged case alone? I don’t get any of this behavior on this page on Vivaldi. Another person has done more of a deep dive and also came up short.

When reached for comment, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly told the Daily Beast in a statement, “It’s sad that Daily Beast interns cannot grasp the concept of pro-growth policies that create jobs. Their minds are clearly warped after cheering on Joe Biden as he wrecked our economy for four years.”

The pettiness is unreal.

Unless you were present at the time, you are in the metaphorical arm chair as well.

I’ll take your points under advisement but I’m most certainly done arguing about this.

You clearly have a different take on the situation. A bunch of dipshits showing deepfakes around on a bus, ostensibly with other people around who are not party to this dispute and a grownup in the driver’s seat, does not convince me that even your interpretation applies here. But neither one of us was present, we are both arm chairing this, we are just sitting in different arm chairs. Let’s leave it at that.

In my view, self defense is a legal defense when somebody used violence to defend themselves against an immediate threat of physical harm. I don’t see how, legally, you could expand the parameters to fit this case. But I’m also not a lawyer.

The argument it seems to me you could be building here is that the victim of despicable bullying, ignored and misunderstood by all the authorities, lashed out out of desperation. And that in itself is an act of self defense. I think that’s a moral way to look at it, but not a legal one. The latter will look at this exactly as mitigating circumstances.

I mentioned that I do understand why she did what she did. You add more information to this story that only increase understanding as far as I’m concerned.

Let me turn this into an extreme example for comparison’s sake. If a parent shot their child’s rapist and murderer, we all get it. Nobody will say “I have no idea why they would do such a thing.” A lot of us outsiders would look at that case and even be glad about this outcome. And at the same time, the mother or father would end up in prison. Because you cannot take the law in your own hands and expect not to be punished for that. There will be mitigating circumstances, they won’t go in for life. The punishment might just be exactly the time they spent in custody before their trial. But there will be punishment because we have rules about that. (Obviously, this example is not the same as this case of bullying. I’m only using it to compare consequences.)

Was this self defense? She was just defending her digital privacy? I’m not a lawyer. As a layman, I’m going to say this does not meet the legal criteria. Morally? Absolutely.

We can meter out appropriate punishment to everybody else here: the school that maybe responded badly. The parents of the dipshits who got their hands on an undress app. The fact that there are undress apps available to middle schoolers or anybody really. Etc. But we also have the benefit of hindsight.

You and I get why she threw punches. We might even go as far as cheering her on, in our heads, had we somehow been there. Go get those bastards, black eyes for all of them. My point was merely that if you resorted to violence like that you cannot expect not to be punished for it. Like in my extreme example, there are mitigating circumstances. Plenty of them. All should be considered. But there will be something on the record. In this case the suspension/probation, which I hoped is the punishment for every fight.

She got suspended and he didn’t (yet, as we find out halfway through). The headline of the linked article in the post implied that this was the outrageous part. My criticism was aimed first and foremost at the writer/editor of that article.

Let’s take a moment to realize that 95% of you hadn’t heard of cafe mom as an outlet until just now. And that the article’s headline is misleading/tabloidy at best. And while the rest seems well researched, it’s clearly misleading a bit. If you start beating a kid on the bus and ask others to join in, it’s not a surprise that you get suspended. Yes, she’s also the victim of terrible bullying and felt let down by the faculty (who - understandably - may need more than hearsay before they start taking action). You can still not beat people up. Nobody doesn’t understand that she did it. And indeed even the police looks at all of this as mitigating circumstances. And she’s back in school and on probation and that’s hopefully what they do with all kids who start fistfights. The buried headline is that the other kid is under police investigation, which has the potential not only to get him suspended after all but will have even more serious consequences. From what I read here, the system works as well as it can but the story is written to cause outrage.

I understand that victims of bullying like this or sexual assault in general face an uphill battle they never wanted to fight. And with the details in this story I can totally understand why the girl snapped. And I wish her nothing but the best and appropriate punishment for the kids who circulated the images. And still, you can’t resort to violence and expect not to be punished for it. We are not talking about self defense here.

The Dutch and Irish levers this writer envisions sound like paper straws to me. It would be in everyone’s interest to make Ireland less friendly to the tech giants. But Irish butter is not going to make up the losses if they sour the tech milk. It’s also unlikely that The Netherlands would be willing to take one for the team here without a price tag. One whose amount will be shrinking fast as Chinese companies backwards engineer their chip making techniques by hiring former engineers from that company. Don’t hold your breath that the EU will get the needle out. The US may have to go it alone.

I’m sure they love you for having that opinion. I only read their stuff when it pops up here. Maybe they also do actual journalism. This piece here is a biased, yet eloquently written retelling of like three moments that happened in a podcast. The news value is hardly detectable.

Man, of inexplicable fame, with strange opinions is temporarily caught out. Hold the press!

Maybe we should stop looking at what futurism is writing about because it seems to me that they are just writing tabloid stories for people who don’t like so-called AI. I think this is the third time I clicked through on a link and am left with regret to have added to their page views.

The commenter before me described the solution, give cops an override, as easy. I wanted to highlight that it isn’t that easy. Unintended side effects ought to be considered before coming up with seemingly easy solutions. And this problem is not dissimilar to the one about encrypted chats and law enforcement wanting a backdoor into that. If you build a backdoor, it’s not guaranteed that only the good guys use it. And that raises questions about privacy on the encryption front or questions about abuse, safety, and liability on the self-driving car front.