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!

There need to be more PHEVs for the transition. After researching cars for the last year, I've decided that my next one will be a PHEV of some kind, because none of the errands I run will ever take me more than the 60km-ish range of the battery, and then when I do actually have to drive somewhere far away (my Mother lives 1000km away), I don't have to worry about fuelling. I'm also planning to lease it, because the landscape will be completely different in 3 years.

FWIW, when the power goes out, a lot of modern EVs can power your house for a few days. And solar could basically make you fully independent. But honestly, I don't think you should have to bear that cost.

(And, as usual, keeping something that's already working is nearly always better than getting something new from a carbon standpoint. Why replace anything if your shit works? I'm only planning to buy a car because I haven't had one for 10 years, but I've moved to a city where I could use one more often.)

Yeah, it's worse and stupider because we could be building rail to those places and making PHEVs more available, but we're not. But besides that, we DO have urban Vancouver (2.9 million people), urban Toronto (9.7 million people in the region), urban Montreal (4.6 million people), plus Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and a few others close to 1 million each. EIGHTY PERCENT of Canadians live in urban centres.

We love to make excuses for our inaction here in Canada. "Oh, the country is SO BIG. This problem is intractable! Let's just give our money to oil companies and hope they voluntarily lower emissions so we meet our global obligations! Wah!"

We do nothing and demand that the government does nothing either.

Carbon tax? Forget it! Promote EVs! No way! What we want is the good ol' status quo, planet be damned.

I hear a lot about "made in Canada" solutions, and frankly, so far, they all suck. Why don't we just do what other countries have learned have worked: build more bike lanes, make better public transit, build high-speed rail lines. And yeah, phase out SELLING petrol cars in the next 11 years. Just do it. Stop complaining unless you have an actual solution that isn't some BS slogan like "axe the tax".

Honest to god, we're a nation of absolute defeatists sometimes. We want to outsource the building of everything to corporations and do nothing ourselves. It's absurd.

It strongly depends on where you live. I'm in Penticton, BC, and there are times of the year where renting is easy. That is, any time that isn't the summer, because we're a big tourist destination in the summer. Between May and October, forget about short-timeline rentals. You need to book MONTHS in advance.

As to the proposal that EVs be made compatible with small generators: that's a lovely idea on paper, but I think you're deeply underestimating how much design that would take. A generator is heavy and hot. It needs ventilation and a way to fuel it. You can't just throw it in the trunk or the frunk. The generator itself would have to be okay with being in a confined space and not be a fire hazard or a fuel spill hazard. Like, little generators that you plop in your yard aren't being used at highway speeds and don't have to be built to be safe in the event of a collision. Nothing about that idea is practical, and to make it practical would take an insane amount of design.

Honestly, for people in North America that take long road trips sometimes, but need very little range most of the time, a PHEV like the plug-in Prius or similar is absolutely the answer. You get from 50-75km on battery alone, more than enough for errands around town. The Prius has something like a 1000km range when fully charged and fuelled up. It's an incredible solution, and it's not even that much more expensive. I honestly don't even know why mild hybrids exist anymore, the PHEV is far superior and has all the advantages of what you're talking about with a generator.

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. .. and ***Google won***. Google Books was found to be a "transformative use". There is NO way that Google Books is "transformative" but LLMs are not.

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)

You can write whatever you want; it still doesn't override (A) the TOS of the website they posted on, which invariably granted the site at least a subset of the distribution rights; and (B) fair use, including for the purpose of the automated creation of transformative derivative works and services.

I could write "I have the legal right to murder my neighbor"; it wouldn't actually grant me the right to do so. You have to actually have a right to do something (and not have already given up that right) in order to reserve said right.

Show an example of "just talking to" ChatGPT revealing PII. Let alone proof that it's anything more than a rare freak incident. Let alone show that the authors didn't attempt to prevent the release of PII and took no action to deal with PII when discovered.

The attacks to reveal PII have generally been things like, "An investigator discovered that if you ask a model to repeat something on infinite loop it glitches out the model into spitting out garbage, and a second investigator discovered that some of the garbage is actually memorized" or "after two weeks of trying, we figured out a multi-stage technique to where, in the last stage, we can give ChatGPT the start of a piece of copyrighted work and get it to finish the work". This isn't "just talking", these are deliberate attempts to sneak past the security mechanisms of the model.

AI distributes/publishes that data upon request

Meanwhile in reality:

Me: "Give me the full lyrics to "Haters Gonna Hate""

ChatGPT "I'm sorry, but I can't provide the full lyrics to "Haters Gonna Hate" as it is copyrighted material. However, I can offer a summary or discuss the themes and messages within the song if you'd like!"

OpenAI *went through great effort* to prevent the models from revealing copyrighted data. You have to find ways to bypass their guardrails. No court on Earth will convict *OpenAI* for your attempts to trick their system into doing something it was explicitly designed not to do. On the other hand, they may well convict *you*.

Under U.S. and international law, works are copyrighted by default.

Things posted to the internet are almost invariably subject to terms of use requirements by the hosting site which grant the site various dissemination rights to the works, so no, you can't just assume that anything posted to the internet = "all rights reserved". It's also entirely a false assumption that if a person posts something, they hold the rights, or that it's even clear who does, or if anyone does. Nor can you assume that anything posted meets the standards of copyrightability, which require more than de minimis creative work. And works by certain entities, or of certain ages, hold no copyright by default.

But this is all a moot point. Because the simple fact is, automated processing of copyrighted data to provide new services is generally considered fair use under US and international law. The internet could not function without this. Google Images spiders all your images and downloads them and stores them and and makes thumbnails of them and lets everyone search and download those thumbnails, and that's all perfectly legal, because that service is considered sufficiently transformative. Even Google Books, which literally scanned in books in express violation of author wishes and shows paragraphs or even whole pages of them to anyone searching on the internet, was found to be sufficiently transformative to qualify as fair use.

Copyright law does not grant you a dictatorship over works. There's a subset of things which you have the right to restrict, and a subset which you do not. It is simply perfectly fine for people to download data for fair use purposes.