Maybe if Israel hadn't been politically and financially backing Hamas, it might have been different. But hey, all that counts is "Palestinians bad, Israelis good". Simple is so much easier to cope with than reality.
It's not just a question of whether it's justifiable. It's just simply nonsense to think that they can enforce this. Anyone can run Stable Diffusion on their computer. There's a virtually limitless number of models finetuned to make all kinds of porn. It's IMHO extremely annoying all the porn flooding the model sites; I think like 3/4ths of the people using these tools are guys making wank material. Even models that aren't tuned specifically for porn, rarely does anyone (except the foundation model developers, like StabilityAI) specifically try to *prevent* it.
The TL/DR is: if you think stopping pirated music was hard, well, *good luck* stopping people from generating porn on their computers. You might as well pass a law declaring it illegal to draw porn.
Light exposure, depth, degree of exposure, isolated from others or clustered... many factors can affect survivability.
To be fair, there have been times where Earth's temperature changed relatively rapidly.
On the other hand... those times tended not to work out very well for life :
Our current experiment with mass greenhouse gas emissions affecting the climate, Earth itself has kinda done it before, at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary. The associated Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) left the world such an altered place that we refer to it as a different era (the Eocene). The oceans took the brunt of the hit. Except the differences we have vs. the PETM are *not* to our favour:
* The arctic was ice-free going into the PETM; ours is not. The presence of ice creates an amplifying feedback process, where the more ice that melts, the more sunlight gets absorbed, creating more heat to melt more ice.
* We're releasing our carbon an order of magnitude faster (though our methane emissions are similar)
The PETM caused a 5-8C rise over 6000 years, but we're speed-running it, so it's really our best case. The worst case is the K-Pg extinction event
Only the worst excursions in history tend to result in large parts of the earth becoming relative sterile. But they all lead to mass disruptions in ecosystems and waves of global or at least local extinction (but new speciation of the survivors who take their place). Indeed, we probably owe our existence to the PETM - primates diversified and radiated after it. But that's little solace to species that didn't make it. Like, for example, dinoflagellates flourished during the PETM. But do you really want to replace reefs with red tide?
Also, it's actually 1-3 years. The Great Barrier reef underwent mass bleaching events in 2016, 2017, 2020, 2022, and now in 2024.
(To be clear on terminology: colony != reef. A coral colony is a cluster of polyps that bud or divide off from each other, all genetically identical and interconnected by the coenosarc to share resources, with each polyp living for a few years. For a plant analogy, the colony would be a a tree, and the polyps, individual leaves of that tree)
Going through mass bleaching events every 2-3 years is not the "whew, let's relax" event you seem to think it is when corals don't hit reproductive age for ~3-10 years, depending on species, with initial reproduction rates being slow and taking time to accelerate (the longest-lived animals on Earth are coral colonies, with certain individuals documented having lived for thousands of years; most live for decades, or in some species hundreds of years). Let alone the knock-on for all the species that depend on healthy coral for their their habitat, which lead to balance in the ecosystem, which is critical to e.g. preventing explosions of coral predators.
It's like taking an old growth forest in an ecosystem not adapted to regular fires, and burning it down every couple years. There will still be "something" living there, but it's just not going to be the same ecosystem it was.
Or they were just healthier to begin with, or more favourably situated. It doesn't mean that they have an inherent genetic advantage.
Corals are not fast growing. They grow about a centimeter per year, give or take half an order of magnitude. The fastest-reproducing corals still take several years to hit reproductive age, while others take as much as a decade. These aren't like bacteria that can quickly get new genes into the mix, test them, and quickly spread them through the population.
Corals need to get off Tiktok and stop with these unhealthy style trends. You're beautiful the way you are, corals!
Your legal theory where a person can break into someone's house, take book that the person doesn't have the right to share, photocopy it, and share it, and that this is the VICTIM's liability because their locks aren't good enough to stop the attacker, is duly noted.
Or is this just a good old fashioned human-dupe?
This is in turn also not correct. All works are NOT automatically granted copyright. The work has to meet certain qualifying standards, for example more than de minimis human creative work. You can't just write "My dog farted" and assert that it's copyrighted; that simply won't pass creativity standards. Some works, such as AI works (which have not been not further human processed or involved in a creative selection process), are automatically denied copyright on these grounds. A wide variety of things are also not available for copyright protection - ideas, facts, short phrases / slogans, government works (with certain exceptions), and so forth are not copyrighted. Also, works posted online - aka, virtually all works anyone in this discussion is talking about - are generally posted on sites with a TOS, which requires the user granting the site at least limited distribution rights (and in some cases, full rights over the work).
And it's BTW a good thing that de minimis works are ruled out, because so much of our online life is basically structured around copyvio. For example, the "Forward" button on an email client might as well be labeled "Violate Copyright" - you're taking someone else's work and sending it to a third party, generally without the author's express consent. The primary defense that one has in this case is to argue that the received email e.g. lacks sufficient creativity, is just facts and ideas, or so forth.
Running your own website may get you past a TOS, but it doesn't mean you can disclaim fair use.
LLM training falls outside many of the tests commonly applied to decide fair use.
If Google can win Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc., there is no way AI training would run afoul.
Google: Ignored the explicit written request of the rightholders
AI training: generally honours opt out requests
Google: Incorporated exact copies of all the data into their product
AI training: only data seen commonly repeated generally gets memorized, otherwise it just learns interrelationships
Google: Zero barriers to looking up exact copies of whole paragraphs or even whole pages of the copyrighted works.
AI training: Extensive barriers set up during the finetune; success at extracting said information has required attack vectors, frequently estoteric, and sometimes requiring the attacker to provide part of the copyrighted text themselves.
Google: Product literally designed for one purpose, that purpose being to return exact content
AI training: Literally the opposite; designed for *synthesis*, for solving *novel* tasks.
Or take diffusion models. The amount of data on the weights is on the order of one byte per training image (give or take an order of magnitude). Meanwhile, Google Images searches return 50 kilopixel scaled copies of *exact copyrighted images*
The simple fact is that the very existence of the internet relies on the fact that automated processing of copyrighted data to create new transformative products and services is fair use.
Back at you.
I'll repeat: they were creating attacks against the models to find ways - often quite convoluted and esoteric - to trick them into doing things that their designers put safeguards against them doing, as you can quite literally see in my examples above.
People who write this sort of stuff remind me so much of the people who share viral messages on Facebook stating that Facebook doesn't have the right to their data, and that by posting some notice with the right legalese words they can ban Facebook for using their data. Sorry, but you gave up that right when you agreed to use their service, and no magic words are just going to give it to you.
(Let alone when talking about rights that you never had in the first place, such as to restrict fair use)
On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.
