drngdds

The post specifically proposes royalties for ideas from books, not royalties for the books themselves. You would absolutely still be able to share ideas you learned from the books you pirated in that situation. It'd be insanely draconian if you couldn't.

(Then again, US copyright law often is insanely draconian.)

I think you're just bad at identifying assholes

You are responsible for the consequences of your actions

A lot of people have easy answers to the hard problem of consciousness these days, huh

Who else is going to make new songs for her?

Lots of artists! They are not even remotely hard to find. They are literally a google search away. Typing stuff into Suno because you can't be bothered to search "new artists that sound 90s" is crazy

That's not psychosis, that's just being wrong. Perhaps read something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis

Anthropic lost a $1.5B lawsuit for downloading books from shadow libraries

404 Media is owned by its reporters

It's renting vs. owning. I care a lot about music, so I don't like paying monthly for it without even getting to build a real collection.

Also, it's just nice to not be at the whims of corporations and copyright lawyers. It sucks when some song you love gets taken down, or your streaming app introduces some shitty UI changes, or you find out the company you're paying has been doing unethical shit, or the monthly fee goes up, or any number of other annoyances.

How does this differ from Navidrome and other Subsonic-based music servers?

It's the opposite - we're way less centralized now. No one cares about what's on the radio or MTV anymore. We have infinite access to every song ever* for $11 a month, and the recommendation algorithms will happily show you music outside the mainstream and outside the current decade if that's what keeps you listening.

*yes this is hyperbole

libertarians

Palmer Luckey got kicked out of Meta for funding Trump ads, I don't think you can classify him as a libertarian lol

(though there are many other self-described libertarians who are even more right-wing-authoritarian, so maybe nitpicking isn't worthwhile)

How? It's fine to have on people with all different viewpoints, including awful ones, but I think pushing back when they're on some bullshit is good and necessary. Otherwise you're just uncritically spreading fake junk to a huge audience, which leads to more people believing in fake junk.

No, these people and their ideology were around way way before e/acc was a thing

Are the modified Pokemon being used in competitions?

Interestingly, it's pretty much standard for competitive Pokemon players to use hacked Pokemon because of the crazy time investment the game demands to train Pokemon with optimal stats and movesets legitimately. They use free methods to do this though.

Those seem like really bad numbers to me, considering the base rate fallacy. Most of what people test with something like that is probably not going to be AI-generated, which could mean getting massive numbers of false positives.

Working like hell to meet an arbitrary deadline at all costs is a nightmare

This is a really conservative view about what ways to make art are valid. Generative art is nothing new and it can be pretty awesome sometimes.

There's isn't even any nudity lol, you're not gonna see any less coverage than you would at the beach. Please take the "won't someone think of the children!" nonsense elsewhere.

How much does it cost? Is it subscription-based? I can't find anything about it on the site.

And even when you can explain your whole justification for doing Y, it often doesn't help. In my experience, longer your question is, the more likely it is that people will just skim over it and misunderstand it. Or they'll argue against your reasons for doing Y and try to convince you that you really should be doing X anyway.

The moderation system is pretty much the same as any forum. You just have to read the sidebar rules first when you're posting on an unfamiliar subreddit, as you would when joining any community.

Yeah, this is a risk.

The best approach is to take advantage of the fact that Bandcamp lets you download everything and simply download everything you buy and keep backups (as you would with any other important data)

I don't know how accurate/inaccurate the overall argument here is, but they're saying "STEM" a whole lot when their criticisms are pretty specifically about tech, and mostly software companies.

GPT4 is the only one I've used much but it really can be good as a Google alternative for certain kinds of questions. I wouldn't trust it for anything obscure and complicated though - if you ask it about something like competitive Pokemon, you'll just get a stream of confidently incorrect junk that any beginner could disprove. (Asking for sources does help this sometimes though.)

You're missing a couple important things:

- It's not just bubble colors, those don't matter. What does matter is that image and especially video quality are absolute crap when texting between iPhone and Android, and almost all iPhone users in the US use iMessage instead of another platform like Whatsapp, so the experience tends to suck on both ends when texting between an iPhone and Android. It's all for vendor lock-in and it helps no one but Apple. Look up the "buy your mom an iPhone" bit.

- Not everyone cares about the private property rights of a trillion dollar corporation. I definitely don't! I think Apple can get fucked, and I think it's cool if people find ways to exploit their APIs to do things Apple doesn't want them to do.

Yann LeCun is a clown lol. The Chief AI Scientist at _Facebook_ of all companies expects me to just trust him when he says "it'll be safe guys, we'll figure it out, we wouldn't release anything that was harmful :)"

With the hypothetical AGI, the answer is "most non-manual forms of human labor"

I don't think step 2 would have to even involve an involuntary break out

OpenAI or whoever would just go "oh damn, we can make a lot of money with this thing" and voluntarily give it internet access

Maybe Ilya realized he was acting emotionally and messed up massively by getting rid of Sam and a truthful explanation would make him look like an idiot

Or alternately, he made a well-reasoned and principled decision by getting rid of Sam, but now everyone thinks he's awful for it and he's trying to save face and avoid ruining his own career

Or a secret third thing, of course