Memes can be anything which can be used in internet postings. Like the first couple of things which come to my mind when you say "meme" are "Longcat is LOOOOOOOOOONG" and "Millhouse is not a meme". What characterises memes is that the community keeps using them over and over again (hence an idea which replicates itself). People who think they can create something and instantly call it a meme are just lazy.

It's very easy to make contracts, they often don't require a signature. If you go into a shop, pick up an item, give the right amount of money to the cashier and walk out with it, that money becomes owned by the store and the item becomes owned by you because a contract got formed. This message just isn't enough to form the kind of contract needed to shift house ownership.

It's a perfectly sensible question to ask something which has been marketed to you as "AI". That the technology has been marketed misleadingly is the responsibility of the marketers.

Nicotine needs to be regulated so that dealers can't do this sort of thing. And all the drugs which are currently banned need to be legalised and regulated so that dealers can't do this sort of thing (or at least they can avoid being hunted for prison by not doing this sort of thing).

Chose randomly next Monday, looked up the schedules on BBC 1, 2, 3 and 4, 0 police procedurals out of 66. There was one detective show.

Their early work was absolutely right, and they can still be used to send charity to where it will do the most good per pound if you just ignore the AI cultists.

While the FSF's principles are generally laudable, there are far more basic ones which should be appealed to here. If you go into a shop and buy a spade, say, you can use that spade to dig until it physically falls apart, the manufacturer can do nothing to stop you. It must be written in law that this is how all purchases work. If you buy an item, (rather than renting it,) you get the right to use that item as advertised in perpetuity, limited only by inevitable constraints such as physical durability. If the manufacturer tries to make you agree to some terms in order to use the item, they get prosecuted for extortion, and if they do anything which makes it unusable for all or part of its advertised purpose, they get prosecuted for criminal damage, the same consequences as would face someone who creeps into your house and breaks one of your things or takes it hostage unless you make some agreement with them.

Another option: just let them in, There's no rule saying that every nation on the planet has to oppose free travel for human beings.

I still refer to it as Twitter due to intense "bad will". Specifically, I'm not changing what I call something because a Nazi wants me to.

The Labour government in the UK is very right-wing. They've been throwing left-wingers out. The powerful seek to infiltrate all bodies of power, including those who are supposed to represent the people.

It's sad to see people associating "democracy" with money bringing power. In a properly working democracy, the richest person should have no more political power than the poorest.

Because due to the crisis in capitalism which has been going on since 2008, normal capital accumulation isn't possible at sufficient levels any more, so fictitious capital is required to keep things going. (Also see bitcoin.) It's the same basic cause as half the developed world going fascist.

4. Ignore the demands for features/fixes and just do what you want.

They may be able to do some things like make an image which looks sort of like the thing it's supposed to be, but not being actually intelligent, they can't write. That's something you can't do with statistics, you need actual thoughts and feelings to convey.

If we do ever make artificial intelligence and it wants to write, it's writings will likely be of no interest to anyone anyway, (outside of academic interest or a few weirdos,) what humans write and are interested in is mostly driven by things related to having organic bodies. A real AI is not going to be writing about things like sex, it's going to write about things relevant to itself.

It's not exactly like training a person, because human brains and computers are different, additionally a human looking at art is generally what the art is for and the human getting greater understanding of art at the same time is a bit of a side-effect.

That said, it's not exactly like making a copy either. It's generally undefined in legal terms, because laws have been written on the assumption that a person looking at it or some kind of literal copying procedure are the only important things which are done with art, but it exists in a space somewhere in between the two, having elements of both.