Everyone is misunderstanding the intent behind this. The key phrase in TFA is "unlicensed AI output".

Music charts don't measure popularity, they do their damnedest to create it. From the famous RIAA payola scandal (which very much still happens, it's just structured slightly differently to remain legal) to the latest breakout nepo-baby somehow charting in the top ten despite nobody ever having heard of them the day prior - The various recording industry groups exist to promote their members - who are not the actual artists - and couldn't care less about accuracy.

There's nothing human about "the machine" (now an oddly ironic description) fearing AI generated music because it very much is an existential threat to them. I'm neither a fanboy nor hater of AI, but it won't be long before it doesn't suck and these whores can no longer control the market.

Yes - "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

We live in a world where everyone on the planet, on every side of the issue, knows perfectly well 34-time felon and adjudicated sexual assailant Donald J. Trump is at the very least a pedo rapist, a corrupt and incompetent businessman who managed to bankrupt the licenses-to-print-money that are casinos, and was quite possibly Epstein's boss rather than merely a prolific client of the largest human sex trafficking operation known to modern history. And yet somehow, his base is willing to draw a line in the sand over some mythical official release of the Epstein files. The same Epstein files that would 1) completely exonerate him if his story is true, and 2) have already been sufficiently released and/or leaked prior to redactiongate to eliminate any reasonable presumption of innocence.

This is a relatively minor retaliation case. Unless Kegsbreath needs a distraction from his next drunken compromise of opsec, this ruling will be publicly acknowledged with some whining, then privately ignored anywhere it matters. It's a hefty uphill battle to ever "prove" Anthropic doesn't get a particular contract in violation of Lin's ruling.

Sure, just not many 8 year olds are customers. It's teenagers.

It's not stupid if chaos and destruction are the goals. It's only evil.

To maggots anyone not on their party line is wrong. Too bad that party line is an unprotected signal chat.

You were mad that efforts were being made to make up for prejudicial treatment that you have benefited from and now you want to cry about it here and get other people to comisserate with you over it. You proved exactly how necessary such efforts are with your crybaby reaction.

I have at least one persistent moderation troll. The usual one mods down three in a row without concern for appearances because he knows that slashdot protects anyone who increases post count

You realize Netanyahu is Jewish, right?

I can't speak for the GP, but in my case it was a sort of "constructive dismissal" that finally pushed me away from all things FB-related.

I used to enjoy outing scammers on IG. I was even so naive as to think I was in some small way doing the platform a service by sticking a red flag on its bad actors. Whoops, guess what, folks? Scammers drive engagement and that's all these platforms care about. So I started getting progressively longer mutings after every post or comment I'd make, regardless of how tame - It got to the point where I finally rage-quit after getting a three-day ban immediately (as in, the notification arrived exactly as I hit post, so there's not even a chance I was reported that fast) for commenting something like "nice sunset, wish I was there!" to a close friend.

I have to admit it's somewhat changing how I write - Not because I use AI to help me write, but rather, my own writing style pretty much meets most of the criteria listed. Case in point, there's a negative parallelism right there and I wasn't even trying for an example. It's an extremely effective rhetorical device, and AI be damned for trying to steal it from us!

Low-frequency word choices, hyphens/dashes/em-dashes (I use hyphens rather than em-dashes, but most people have no idea what the difference is), and Oxford commas? Check. And okay, that last one was intentional.

Accordingly, I now consciously try to sound at least a bit less like AI when writing, mostly through the use of more metaphor and sensory references that have no meaning to an AI.

By all means, celebrate ignorance. I note you skipped over the #1 definition. Typical coward shit. You're afraid of knowledge.

Google stores more data about users' activities than Ring could ever dream of. It's literally the basis of its primary business. Throw some more stones, though.

There is no country on Earth where you're required to own works you cite from. It may be all but impossible to access some content without paying, but once you've seen it - including unlawfully* - you can reference it to your heart's content and there's not a damned thing the author or publisher can do about it.

Google is clearly trying to firewall off their own issues with mass copyright infringement during AI training by passing the buck to the end user. Not happenin', guys! If this rent-seeking scheme actually works in any form, it will just make Gemini everyone's absolute last choice for literature review.

* Yes, there are of course exceptions like classified material and trade secrets, but that's not what Google is talking about here.

Your experience is literally irrelevant because it doesn't prove a negative and it doesn't speak to anyone else's experience.

Fox also broadcasts. It does matter. As you say, Fox Broadcasting! The one thing supported the other. They pretended not to operate as a network in their early years so they wouldn't be subject to requirements of networks, but they were only just under the line. I don't know where this idea that Fox is not a broadcasting network came from except possibly for that, but it absolutely is and was one and that network supported their cable network. The two are effectively one thing, that's why they called them both Fox.