Yes. I do not understand - at ALL - why the fuck Youtube thinks anybody would want to loop any of this. What was the target audience? Who said, "Yes please, I want to hear short form content on repeat."

Maybe I'm not the targeted demographic - and that's good, because that targeted group is just plain stupid.

"SpaceX Launches 10,000th Starlink Satellite"

"Mystery Object From 'Space' Strikes United Airlines Flight Over Utah"

But whereas some might carry the modifier, "With Distinction", use the model my drivers license has. "Requires glasses". So the degree comes with an asterisk and a footnote that says, "Requires AI".

But I doubt it'll happen. Illiterate people routinely graduate as it is.

You're right. While the truly excellent outliers I have known and led have all been local-ish, the median is about the same and has been, in my experience, for almost a decade. And the worst coders I have known were also local. Most of the Indian and Filipino coders I have known were straight up the middle, generally competent enough. Not stars, not flops.

And you offloaded that price of growth to those other countries. The fact that you changed its geography doesn't make it go away. It's still your cost.

I don't think you could price it high enough, except by pricing it so high you would effectively cause our solutions to converge. Whether you ration gasoline or you price it beyond the affordablility of the masses, you're doing the same thing.

Perhaps we agree by effect, if not verbiage.

Actually, yes, Growth, at least, is bad for the environment. The environmental cost has always marched alongside economic growth. Pollution, for instance, isn't a side effect of growth. II's a facilitator. The path to environmental balance is massive recession. You don't have to go back to candles and horses, but you probably have to give up 500 watt video cards whose only contribution to society is pretty graphics.

Too little, too slow. Trying to promote things like insulation standards and massive public transportation upgrades won't move the needle quickly enough to deal with the crisis. We would have to start in the 1950s. And the affluent will be unmoved, since they can absorb the uptick in energy costs. We can't "suggest" our way out of this.

The scalpel is no longer enough. Time for the sledgehammer.

Increase the capacity of transit, but not the quality, and ration gasoline mercilessly. Ban trivial uses of AI - no more generating 500 versions of an album cover because it's free. Put a halt to new data centers, and put a bullet in nvidia. And so on. Starve the supply side as well as the demand. Pay the large societal cost of that. And it will hurt. A lot. This would work... but...

Understand that I think these things will not happen. I think we're screwed, and we'll pay the price through mitigation, not prevention.

I don't have a better answer. I just think what you are suggesting wouldn't accomplish enough to matter.

Well, to be fair, the work of animation artists has become more complicated for animators, and all of the same inputs are there. Sketching, storyboarding, character design... the artists are still completely in the drivers seat. Whether you draw on a digital tablet or a paper pad, the laws about creative ownership are pretty well established.

When you can direct the AI to produce "Finding Nemo" purely from vocal instructions, this argument becomes important. But nobody designed Marlin by typing 500 variations of "Draw me a clownfish".

You're moving the goalposts. You seem to start from a position by way of axiom, and then use the axiom to defend the position.

At the same time you skip over the question that is quite important. Does the work violate copyright? Is the artifact substantively identifiable as a derivative work of the source? It only took one bar of mostly borrowed notes for Queen to win their famous lawsuit.

It's very complicated, and you seem to want it to be simple. But it's going to take a long time to sort out the new world.

And you're undervaluing the milliner. :)

We have people who can make hats, yet for some reason we make hats in factories. AI is the factory model for creative output. If a fledgeling business is scraping together the money for promotional material, AI can do something people cannot - produce serviceable artifacts for pennies in seconds.

Yes, people can do it better. Well... some of them can. But when better is not needed, it's pretty hard to beat the value proposition.

Sigh... that argument is hopelessly muddied. People are almost completely reliant on training data too. We have examples of art that is close to being free of external influences. It's on the walls of caves in a handful of places. Not saying it's the same... just saying the argument has no resolution.

Your scenario is incorrect. The DJ in question would be in possession of a song over which no artist in the world can claim definitive authorship. And he is seeking protection. In your example he has downselected to whole protected works. These are divergent situations.

But I'm inclined to think the USCO has this one right. Not for all of the nebulous questions around training data, originality, or what constitutes creative authorship... but because almost any other position is unenforceable. You only create a vast grey zone that is fraught with litigation. How many refinements constitutes the difference between hands off and worthy of protection? Fifty? A hundred? And how do you prove that many were used? And that 90 weren't just feeding that iteration count?

Either you retreat to protecting every image that can't be deemed a direct copy or you just deny the generative class of images. But if you do the first, bd prepared for the tidal wave of filings that must result when the time needed to produce "art" falls to zero for billions of people.

The difference is that for most of their lives, for the Chinese parents, that was simply true. And even if it stopped being true 15 years ago, we'll... preconceptions die hard.

But make the schools too expensive, decrease the competency of their staff, and tinker with what they teach, and that foreign enrollment will dry up.