741–750 of 769 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> taxi usage is at least somewhat up When's the last time you phoned an operator to book a taxi? If taxis are doing better, it's only because they learned from Uber (and the likes) what the job-to-be-done actually is.
Mytaxi (freenow) was founded the same year as Uber.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how laws work.
What do you mean by that? Do you mean that law has a tendency to work the other way, in that it protects the big guy at the expense of the little guy because of extensive lobbying from the well moneyed big guy, or that justice is blind and it effects all equally? If you're thinking the former I could agree with that on some level and would say that what I'm asking in my original comment is merely aspirational, but if…
The alternative, creating two classes, those who the law helps and those it doesn't, gets incredibly complicated and easy to game: the powerful will get their version of the law.
In the name of protecting the weak, the law will protect the powerful. Making everything much worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by that? Do you mean that law has a tendency to work the other way, in that it protects the big guy at the expense of the little guy because of extensive lobbying from the well moneyed big guy, or that justice is blind and it effects all equally? If you're thinking the former I could agree with that on some level and would say that what I'm asking in my original comment is merely aspirational, but if…
The law generally tries to create a level playing field (or more level playing field). The alternative, creating two classes, those who the law helps and those it doesn't, gets incredibly complicated and easy to game: the powerful will get their version of the law. In the name of protecting the weak, the law will protect the powerful. Making everything much worse.
I can think of many examples off the top of my head.
Tax brackets, accredited investors, professional regulation, varying classes of drivers licenses, voting ages, retirement age and pension eligibility... the list goes on and on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It makes no sense that one is not allowed to make and market a CG Mario movie, but suddenly if you use AI to launder the data it's suddenly ok.
I think there's a difference between being allowed to draw mario vs being allowed to draw and sell mario. It's completely legal for me to draw mario for my own purposes. It should be legal for me to make an ai draw mario for my own purposes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's literally the only scenario where it exists.
You can’t use their generative AI tools on images it deems NSFW, even if the part you’re generating isn’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what do you suggest artists have for dinner.
The same thing I eat for dinner. I eat based on I get from work, that people are willing to pay for. Not all my effort turned into dinners tho. And some types of work once paid for dinners but can't any more. My #4 son is an artist/content creator. He eats based on what his non-art employment will buy. Perhaps one day people will find his art desirable and he could eat from that. It'll be a case where he worked long…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I too would love to earn a living by pursuing my hobbies. Too bad, I'm not in the 0,001-0,1%
"I too would love to earn a living by pursuing my hobbies. Too bad, I'm not in the 0,001-0,1%" This is an unsophisticated view because it looks at a risk/reward scenario and assigns zero value to the risk. The risk has value - regardless of the success, or reward. Put another way: you don't get to discount the risk to zero when it results in a large reward. Entities that took no risks and received enormous rewards (l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same thing I eat for dinner. I eat based on I get from work, that people are willing to pay for. Not all my effort turned into dinners tho. And some types of work once paid for dinners but can't any more. My #4 son is an artist/content creator. He eats based on what his non-art employment will buy. Perhaps one day people will find his art desirable and he could eat from that. It'll be a case where he worked long…
Sometimes people use evil systems for good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh come on. Copyright is a fairly ancient concept that benefits normal people as much as it benefits big corporations. Most book authors, songwriters, and so on aren't fat cats, and they would be harmed if we had zero protections for the duplication of their work. They'd need to depend on state sponsorship or charitable private patronage, both of which are problematic for obvious reasons and limit the range of artist…
What kind of support is there for the hypothesis that our current copyright system is close to ideal in incentivising production of new works? It seems to me that there's a very strong "winner takes all" distribution and we could be a better culture if we had a system that took some of the opulent resources poured into to star wars franchise, rehashed murder simulators and tiktok and distributed it to some poor artis…
Winner takes all is a function of popularity and network effects; how does it relate to copyright?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but would they have liability if they submitted their "output" to a senior artist, who immediately shot it down as obviously infringing? Surely not. It's not illegal to draw Mario - just illegal to make money off your drawing. I think the real question is whether OpenAI should be allowed to charge for generating infringing content. Even though the unit cost of the Mario drawing is negligible, the sum total of their i…
>I think the real question is whether OpenAI should be allowed to charge for generating infringing content. Well, are they really doing that? If I rent a server to host a minecraft instance, is the company "charging for a minecraft server"? It is not clear to me that by charging users for AI usage they are complicit for whatever is generated. We don't require Adobe to prevent people from drawing Mickey either.