Yep. Municipal power is a natural thing to do - it is a situation where the locals are about as close to fully aligned with one another as they get - everyone wants reliable, cheap power and responsive service when you need it. So you make a captive company with a charter that keeps it aligned with its customers instead of Wall St. You don't take silly risks because you're not chasing infinite growth, customers gets decent rates, the area gets some decent local jobs out of it. Everyone except the predators are happy. If only other all local problems had such great solutions.

But, ohhh, booga-booga, that's communism. (Please just ignore Trump seizing the means of production.)

We don't know the exact answer yet, but IMO, you're two-halves right.

The key difference is, humans aren't "trained" primarily via a clean library of tagged data (which in itself is a learned skill). We experience the world as a more-or-less continual stream of noisy data from our several senses. We self-train how to interpret (and primarily, filter) sensory data; and more importantly, how to derive new training data from it.

To be clear, I'm not saying we have so many neurons to support input filtering (though that's admittedly at least partially true). I'm saying we virtually can't run out of new training data. Every second we're alive, it just keeps coming in.

Learn to read.

Except instead of pursuing policies that would help open models at the expense of Big AI, anti-AI people pursue just the opposite - policies that can cripple open source AI but have no realistic ability to meaningfully hurt big AI. It's so short sighted.

Actually, no, what they usually do is much more insidious: fingerprinting rather than watermarking. The fingerprint isn't actually included in the audio, it's included in a database. If they want to tell if the track was generated, they just try to match the fingerprint in the database. Can't filter it out of the track like you can with a watermark.

The two mainstream options (both about half a year old now, we're due for something better) are Ace Step-1.5 and Stable Audio 3 Medium.

Ace Step has full vocals with its music. See here for examples. The downside in my opinion (judge for yourself) is that it has Suno's flaw of sounding too "clean", "mainstream" and "uncreative", except even moreso (Udio was always much better than Suno at this, albeit "less well behaved" - but Udio is out of the game now).

Stable Audio 3 doesn't do vocals, though it has other useful features, like inpainting (great for fixing glitches in recorded tracks for example). In my view, it sounds a lot better. It can also be used to create sound effects. License is a bit more restrictive, though, if you actually care about that, but generally won't affect the average user.

Both are trained on fully licensed data and both are open-weights. So even if the devs released a version that included some sort of watermarking in the future (or someone developed a fingerprinting algo for the existing versions), you could just finetune them to break that.

TL/DR, if you want open source and want to just churn out a full track: choose Ace Step 1.5.
If you want open source and want to do instrumental tracks or to supplement manual work (such as your own vocals) or do audio editing: chose Stable Audio 3.

Current top models are already undertrained by multiple orders of magnitude vs their number of parameters. Not for lack of will or money, but for lack of data - We're already training top models with effectively the entire digitally-available corpus of human knowledge and need about a thousand times more.

That said, the huge Chinese models we've seen lately aren't single models, they're MOEs - Effectively a hive-mind of many smaller models working in concert. Bytedance hasn't mentioned that detail yet but it would somewhat mitigate the training issue. This is still absurdly over-spec'd though. There's simply no way to train it any more than all the rest starving for data.

Not just this month - They also had to revise May and June down by 103k.

It's almost like firing all the people responsible for compiling exactly this data and replacing them with political shills (if at all) was a bad idea. Whodathunkit?

> We need new laws to make life safer in the US and CATCHING Criminals.

Violent crime is at historical lows.

Most of our criminal laws are not enforced. If the police have extra time there is a whole Epstein Client List that needs arresting.

> tying the hands of LEO"S

Yes, that is the point of rights. Liberty is not safety. Europe is available for those who prefer safety over Liberty. Europeans who prefer Liberty should be welcome to come here. Cops who distain the rights of citizens should self-deport too.

Anyway, SCOTUS has extensively covered Mosaic Theory if you want the case law. Imagine being an LEO and ignoring the highest court in the land. That's just gang behavior.

> Government asserts that it will be able to identify all potential suspects

They went too far and failed.

They may be able to identify all suspects but even a clever six year old would ask, "and if they're not carrying an active phone"?

Geofence warrants were already struck down by SCOTUS and the government's position is arguing about the difference between beige, tan, and taupe.

Anyway it's a general warrant.

at this point its inevitable. why worry?

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. Cell phones are different because they're considered private communications despite using public airwaves.

There have been attempts to get precedent that automated, continuous monitoring is qualitatively different than a cop standing outside watching you, with unfortunately mixed results.

Mostly correct. I'd just add the average LEO doesn't care about catching criminals, either, if it takes too much effort.

Going beyond today, this is a long-running theme in US constitutional law. Before the colonial rebellion, King George was a big fan of "writs of assistance". These were effectively licenses for thugs to search or interrogate anyone at any time in pursuit of a crime (or "crime"), and of course anyone subject to such abuse hated it. So that's where the 4th Amendment came from - we do warrants, but you have to name with specificity what/who you want to investigate as well as why and under what authority, and get a judge to agree.

Authoritarians, thugs and control freaks have been trying to reinvent them ever since.

One famous case from before the digital era was Stanford v. Texas (1965). Texas, being extremely Texan, passed the Suppression Act, which made writings, photos, etc. "concerned with" the Texas Communist Party contraband subject to 20 year prison terms. The Supreme Court unanimously held the warrant was an unconstitutional general warrant.

Opposing general warrants is as American as apple pie, opposing kings and displaying amazing senses of entitlement.

I apologize if "purpose" was a poor word choice. The applicable test is whether or not it's being used verbatim or in a transformative way.

Political campaigns are inherently informative (in a "free speech" sense) and non-profit. While commercial use matters in general, it'd be a seriously uphill battle to claim a profit motive - even if they're spewing disinformation and raking in the cash.

No joke, there are fewer ads on broadcast TV than on (free) YouTube now. Broadcast averages 14 minutes per hour. YouTube is harder to find hard numbers but most sources imply it's around 20 minutes per hour - A whopping third of the total viewing time.

Of course, that depends on having something worth watching on (you'd likely be surprised how many channels you get, but they still mostly suck); and for those of us not using a GooTube-sponsored browser that breaks ad blocking, with uBlock Origin that figure drops to zero minutes per hour.

More practically - Broadcast TV is great for having something random on in the background, and it never pauses to ask if you're still watching. If you're trying to see something specific, though, it's no contest - Streaming is vastly superior in nearly every way.