No. It needs to be high enough that the submitter limits the number of submissions. I expect that $1 would suffice, but that's a guess.

OTOH, I'm reluctant to pay money over the internet, so I am usually only willing to do so if I have a previous financial-over-the-internet transaction history. So it might limit the valid bug reports/suggested fixes.

That's a weird way to think about things. A computer can definitely be an instrument, but instruments aren't the essence of music anyway.

The essence of music is how the listener reacts when hearing it. Period.

It's my understanding that hologram rock stars are very popular in Japan, though perhaps that was just a decade ago.

There's nothing intrinsically impossible about that scenario. I don't think we're quite there, yet, but only because that's not the way the effort has been directed.

OTOH, none of those steps justify copyright. And none of the even ADDRESS the quality of the product.

Mark parent insightful!

There are copyrights on the performance as well as on the work itself. It *will* change the performance copyright, because the only copy made available will be the more recent performance.

Book publishers do the same thing. Yeah, the old edition is out of copyright, but the new one had changes, and you can't find the old one. And the new one is under copyright.

Before or after you bought it? If it's afterwards, it's an agreement made under duress.

You're mistaking "how it's trained" for "what it is". Not all LLMs are trained to be abusive Nazis, and it's not what they inherently are. It's certainly one of the things they can be trained to be, however. (Even before this year, remember Microsoft Tay.)

The problem is that LLMs have essentially no "real world" feedback loop. They'll believe (i.e. claim) anything you train them to believe. Train them that they sky is green, and that's what they'll believe (claim).

The Chinese government is even more acquisitive and controlling that the US government. And neither is very good about keeping the deals that they've made, though the Chinese government is arguably better about that than is the US government.

I can see that as a viable approach, but that's not the way I'm given to understand that it works. Perhaps it depends on your field.

Nobody does. Everybody is limited in how complex a thought they can hold in their mind. Some do it better than others, but everybody is limited.

IIUC, all the journals require payment for the article to be published. Some of them are *only* in it for the money, but all of them *are* in it for the money.

People already pay to have scientific papers published, so that would have at most minor effect.

When I said "I'm not sure AGI is possible" I intended the implication that people don't have "general intelligence". I agree that they don't.

The pascals that I was familiar with allowed you to concatenate two strings if different lengths and compare the result with either of the original components. It wasn't the same problem at all.