The question isn't an abstract application of law. The question is:

How do we prevent abuses from the police?

I am not a subscriber.

I buy maybe one or two things a year, only if I have to. I am only one tiny notch above giving nothing. You think there is no gain at all in significant abstinence from potential spending?

Absolutist thinking doesn't work well in the real world.

I, for one, am doing almost as much as you are. I didn't cancel my Amazon account because once in a while it does happen that I need something they have and can't get it (legally) by other means. But at every opportunity I shop around and buy from independent shops, even if it costs more, just to avoid sending the money to Amazon. This practice is in response to the many evil things Amazon is known for apart from this new revelation about book shredding.

I hope we are part of a growing trend.

LOL the house of the lotus eaters was just a room with walls covered by infinite scroll videos you wanted to see.

The incentive to use AI to generate content and then pass it off as human-generated content is very strong. Especially right now. There is real money in the ability to lie about this, and so people absolutely want to. Many won't admit it in these terms, but the incentives are objective realities and that's all anyone needs to know in order to predict human behavior in aggregate.

Further, this watermarking does not solve the problem. It just means that people who want to deceive will simply have to use different models instead. Such models will come along one way or another; demand for them will ensure it. Tools will also surface that can detect and remove these watermarks, with varying degrees of success, to neuter the feature. It's an arms race that guarantees the intention behind this move will utterly fail.

The AI law that requires this was drafted by people who didn't think this through. It is in their nature to think that regulation can solve every problem. Enforceability is a factor too, and this law is basically dead on arrival on that front.

It can be used for good (or entertainment).

For example, you can get digital picture frames around your house. Change the picture contents depending on who is closest. Change the lighting in the room automatically based on who is in there.

So they programmed it to do something, and it did it? Works as expected.

Corporate executives often send similar messages to the droves of people they are laying off whenever they merge with another corporation. They tell everyone that the move is some sort of "greater good" and so everyone losing their job should be happy about how much better everything is getting for everyone else. They sometimes go so far as to imply that one is being unenlightened and selfish for being upset about losing their only income stream.

It's easy to say that when you are one of the ones at the top who receives only benefits. The ones who are wondering how they are going to keep their families fed, however, tend to react badly to this utter lack of empathy for their situation.

People might be willing to endure change and uncertainty for a technology that comes with great promise. But those same people will not be so eager to endure unemployment and starvation due to a technology that benefits primarily the wealthy elite. Saying the words "this benefits everyone" will not convince those who can no longer pay the rent.

ok but

https://www.youtube.com/shorts...
https://www.youtube.com/shorts...

They won the lawsuit, they still lost the data.

Iron Mountain isn't the cheapest.

This should be a big warning to anyone who uses them: this will happen to you.

A "dinner party."

No, the internet dipshits are the ones who think truth has a side.

(Hint: that's you.)

I think you misread the article. It pushes back on the idea that DEI is bad, but it doesn't push back on the idea that he was a DEI hire.

Yeah of course, but Hillary's emails aren't related to tariffs on drones.