Linus chose to move to the US as well to become a US citizen.
To be fair he never claimed to be an idealist.
Also he is anti Russian himself as he made clear in his first comment in the thread. So being forced to remove them is probably a bonus for him.
At the moment the party with the most blame is the one getting away scot-free, the parents (esp. stepfather) and they are suing somebody else for money and perhaps also to shape the narrative.
It’s probably smart, most people are probably not contemplating whether the parents were at any fault for the suicidal tendencies of the child. It’s all conveniently blamed on a the moral panic de jour.
Limits on AI should be set by laws and regulations not judicial decisions or even worse a possible settlement.
It’s disappointing behavior by Linus. It’s understandable that sanctions could force the removal of people just for being Russia.
His reply however shows he personally is in favor of removing people just for being Russian.
I wonder if any of the people who pressured him to take some time off for being a “jerk” will give a shit for this response.
She is a 40 yo lawyer. I doubt that she couldn’t afford something more. I find it plausible that she couldn’t devote more time to the kid.
You would pay the family that provided him with the means to kill himself?
They actually should be held accountable.
Does Russia invading Ukraine justify the US invading Iraq?
Though we are discussing individuals here, should we ban Americans in projects to maintain moral integrity?
BTW are you referring to historical (pre 1990) expansion as well? Because an American really shouldn’t want to go there.
Is this like when Americans blamed Pakistani coders for B737/MCAS debacle only to be proven they implemented Boeing’s (fatally flawed) specifications to the letter?
It’s racism, due to his political alignment he can’t go after black people but Russians are fair game.
I just read your list and it confirms mine.
Small buffer AND can’t skip ahead on a boring video because you can only get served the ads to unlock further video after time equal to the served video duration has passed.
That is not YouTube, it’s online TV and there will be an impact on the product. Preloading a video via a 3rd party client will still easily beat this scheme. Just get a headstart equal to the first ad break.
Sure if you fundamentally change what YouTube you can make it work.
You need very small buffers or complete disablement of seeking even outside of ads. Otherwise a client can reconstruct the video without viewer interruption.
People however expect to be able to skip ahead in YouTube videos, otherwise its just TV.
That’s a lie.
The original Sony feature did not give access to all the hardware and thus it was not possible to play ps3 games on it.
Their ban actually motivated people to crack Sony’s measures and install Linux with full access to the hardware.
As long as a standard “unblessed” usb-c cable will work fully with the phone it’s non-issue.
“Generative” is not a thing in copyright law.
You regard them as different to tools like Word. That does not exist in the law.
When you originally posted that they OpenAI should be on the hook I thought you meant they were the ones commiting copyright infringement. Not that they would violate private contracts with their customers.
Private agreements is not my business.
There is however a push by both sides to settle this in law. Whatever happens will affect everyone.
Yes they do.
Which is why you want an agreement to make them liable for copyright infringement (plagiarism is not a crime itself).
You would have to pay for distributing copyright infringing material whether created by AI or humans or just straight up copied.
I don’t care if AI will be used,commercially or otherwise.
I am worried about further limitations being placed upon the general public (not “creatives”/publishers/AI corps) either by reinterpretation of existing laws, amendment of existing laws or legislation of brand new rights (for copyright holders/creators, not the general public).
I don’t even care who wins, the “creatives” or tech/AI, just that we don’t get further shafted.
You need a very specific prompt to make a copy. Even to just be similar enough you have to put the proper input and try a lot of repetitions.
That’s why the right holders are going after the training which included copying by the AI corpos.
In your dream land right holders could just prompt the AI till it spit something close to their work and sue the AI corp for that. Repeat as needed ; infinite money glitch.
Obviously it doesn’t work that way.
Neither are AI vendors. We have locally hosted AI models and they don’t contain what they output. You can tell by the actual size.
Nope. The output is based on the users input in both cases.
It’s not stealing, its not even ‘piracy’ which also is not stealing.
Copyright laws need to be scaled back, to not criminalize socially accepted behavior, not expand.
Operating system have been used to commit copyright infringement much more effectively and massively by copying copyrighted material verbatim.
OS vendors are not liable, the people who make and distribute the copies are. The same applies for Word processors, image editors etc.
You are for a massive expansion on the scope of copyright limiting the freedoms of the general public not just AI corps or tech corps.
Nothing, he will be dead. Anyone that NSA would bother to use their new and expensive quantum machines on will be an organization that should know better than to be compromised by decades old secrets getting out.