You keep spamming this argument all over the threads; however, you're completely wrong.

First, wearing camera glasses is in no way like "having a traditional video camera on your shoulder".
Lots of people wear glasses. By contrast, very few people run around with cameras on their shoulder. Camera glasses aren't noticeable unless you pay special attention and examine everybody's glasses - especially if they're in not in your immediate proximity or not facing you at the time. By contrast, somebody with a camera on the shoulder is immediately noticeable, even if they have their back to you. Saying the two cases are the same is just silly.

Second, except for a few aficionados, nobody recognizes brands and models of glasses. Also, many people wouldn't even know Meta is selling camera glasses, or how they look. Meta glasses look very close to regular glasses, and the even the tiny recording light will not be normally seen, especially in daylight or if masked or painted over. By contrast, you don't need to recognize the brand of some camera or phone a person points at you to know you're being filmed. Saying the two cases are the same is just silly.

I don't think training a model with copyrighted data is any kind of gray zone at all.

Running inference against such a model _might_ be infringing.

But I don't see the legal argument that model training would be.

Think of model training as lossy data compression. You provide an input, it produces a compressed artifact, and it can no longer reproduce the original when you uncompress it. It can produce _something_. It cannot reproduce the original.

On slashdot, we all agree that format shifting copyrighted works should be allowed and unrestricted, right?

If there is applicable case law here about how lossy a "reproduction" can be before copyright has something to say about it, that would be relevant. Do you know of any?

I think you're repeating something that feels emotionally valid but in my experience, isn't factually (or legally) accurate.

I have found AI models to be frustratingly _obedient_ of copyright.

I'll be in a situation where I ask a specific question about what a document says, and the AI repeatedly says the work is copyrighted and it can't just tell me what it says _verbatim_, but it can answer specific questions for me in its own words (while telling me to check the original).

Two examples from my life are procedural questions about what Roberts Rules of Order would require in a given situation, and, what ASD STE-100 says about how to name/word things.

The applicable US law would appear to be USC 17 Sec 106 and 107, which on one hand limits derivative works, but on the other, allows fair use for purposes of teaching, scholarship, or research.

(USC references provided by AI, btw. Which I haven't read)

I used to agree with you, and then oddly enough, about 25-30 years ago, I came across this signature on another regular slashdot posters postings:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

(AI tells me the attribution is "The Red Lily", Anatole France, 1894)

Quite a few OLED Panel makers.

Where I live. (North Carolina), any one involved in a conversation is allowed to record the conversation from the moment they entered it until it ends, without any consent required. This is not uncommon as it allows people to protect themselves from others scams/threats/ect.

Anyone who think their conversation is secure and private is sadly mistaken. Its only private as long as all other parties respect you.

Get over this silly notion that you can say things to someone and it leave no evidence beyond a man's word. The time for low grade liars has passed.

Passkeys are by _definition_ moveable, so they can't be rooted in hardware. You can use WebAuthn to create device-rooted keys that never live the hardened secure enclave.

And since this audience knows AI isn't good for anything, that means the Chinese just wasted a lot of time, money, and will fail as a nation drowning under AI slop and Terminator jokes.

The problem here is that when you turned on the TV for the first time and clicked the 'I accept' button, you agreed to the recording, and probably agreed that you'd be responsible for letting anybody else who might be in range of the TV know that they're subject to recording.

Is that going to hold up in court? Who knows, but can you afford to spend the money to find out? Somebody eventually will, and you'll get a coupon for twenty bucks off of a new TV as the settlement.

If you define "citizens" as the 1%, then maybe. Otherwise, it's obviously not the case.

Of course, Mr. Chamberlain - "it is peace for our time! Go home and get a nice quiet sleep." (*)

(*) Quoted from Neville Chamberlain's speech on September 30, 1938. Germany invaded Poland less than one year later.

Yeah, my bad, I just automatically assumed this would involve a transfer switch to avoid backfeeding.

Ah, silly me, I thought this would require installation of a transfer switch to avoid backfeeding.

Are they making anything, anyway? Their food delivery website is a disaster, and it's been getting worse. The ride-hailing app has also not changed in years.

Not that hard Co-op is an old idea.