It's their stated business model.

you used to be able to save it as MIDI files you could import into a DAW. In parts by instrument. That's much different than just saving the WAV

they can take their surveillance-state-teet-sucking-predatory-intellectual-property-model and shove it up their ass.

you can turn them off? I want that feature.

He doesn't come up and say: "Hey chat, who should we bomb today?" He is probably just rubber ducking with it. Discussing the background and situations. I would be very surprised if a) he actually allowed it to make the decision for him. and b) he would admit so afterward if this was indeed true.

Who coulda seen this coming? Trump lobs trade war grenades into the supply chain and they're reacting to it. What the hell did they think was going to happen? "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

I much prefer to be sold targeted ads based on my chats than have product placement show up in the bot's responses or have it try to convince me to buy a particular brand directly

Many digital platforms have only ever been online. They supported their businesses on showing ads. But when you combine the amount of fraud involved in impression-driven and clickthrough models, (that don't include conversions,) they are essentially relying on a sort of consumer-friction. Now that consumers can bypass this friction it isn't 'stealing' from companies that built models on being digital billboards, it's just revealing that the information gap that required them scrolling through all this crap before was paying the bills, and thus, not really as valuable as they had originally supposed. It is a bad business model, and I hope it dies in a fire.

When users are writing their own code, they include secrets. Training on secrets in coding sessions is probably a terrible idea. Maybe they have some way to filter out secrets so they don't go in, but what if they miss something? This seems like a huge problem, at least, training on developer coding sessions. I don't really see a problem with doing it on the chats on the web.

If google had produced this video I could understand him being mad. but throwing down at google for not preventing the creation of this video by unaffiliated 3rd parties is an insane thing to sue over. But this is the equivalent of suing a newspaper for publishing a negative opinion piece about yourself. Where did they fail in their responsibility? How on earth could youtube possibly police the 'truth' of their content? It's impossible. This is asinine.

Did you just 'whatabout' me?

It's like we're experiencing the Red Scare and the Satanic Panic both at the same time.

Since when do financial regulations happen at the stroke of the president's pen? This is ridiculous. Is this some kind of shitcoin pump and dump attempt?

Perhaps this will finally spell the end of ad-supported internet. when literally everyone has an ad-blocker installed by default (practically speaking) they're going to have to find new ways to support the business that doesn't involve spamming the crap out of internet real estate with ads. I know that would be deleterious for some of the existing businesses out there, but perhaps it will lead to a better model. Like pay a microtransaction to access content, every time. or have monthly subscriptions that you get 'credits' and each view spends those credits, even automated views. The existing monthly subscription paywalls don't solve this problem because you can't buy just one article and as such, people just avoid the sites entirely. But adding a microtransaction model that doesn't rake the user over the coals for transaction costs could solve it.

They didn't say it's ineligible for copyright protection. They're saying that the copyright violations involved in training AI on their media constitute Fair Use. There's a difference. Fair use is a 'legal' copyright violation.