Afaik you're correct, but if you want to carve out an exception for training AI without upsetting international treaties it's Bern Convention Article 9 (2):

More at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Don't worry, people on this website like pretending to be more informed than their peers.

Marshal plan didn't come about for Democracy. It came about , just as mentioned earlier in the thread, to contain Russia , erstwhile USSR

And there is a reason why Marshal plan didn't invole rest of the world, only western Europe - it is because it was the elite from western Europe who fled to USA during WW2 and had a soft spot for what they still consider their homeland.

In fact, the university towns that supplied to industrial bases Germany were left unscathed and because a lot of allied forces were lead by people who considered them Alma Mater.

On the otherhand, a school was double tapped in Iran recently.

Thanks! That was a twist to the story I really didn't anticipate.

Paying someone for data scraped by compromised smart TVs to train your AI sound if not downright illegal like several lawsuit waiting to happen. Not laying this at the FSF doorstep, but asking is there any movement on this from anywhere?

I'm don't remember any controversy surrounding the EFF since they defended running open email relays and that was a very long time ago? Anyone feel free to remind me if there's anything more recent. (Have you perhaps confused them with the FSF?).

Interesting view. I (from northern Europe) read the article as trying to rose taint full time jobs not paying a living wage necessitating a second job and likewise retirees not having enough pension funds to actually stop working. Perhaps I'm being prejudice against less organized societies.

This is a projection of personal issues.

Normal people find "not being able to comprehend other person's words" to be a much greater obstacle to comprehension than "psychological issues".

Because most people are sane and have a reasonable amount of control over their psychological issues.

For totalitarians, need to identify people is critical. It's why DPRK is indeed democratic and holds elections where Kim wins every single time.

Because voters are identifiable.

This is why 16 gig slow GPUs are more expensive right now than very fast 12 gig ones. More RAM means bigger model can be fit into memory. Also why 24 gig models are unobtainium.

4090s and 5090s have been long used for narrow models in things like research in much of third world. This is the natural next step. Shrinking models further so they can be operated from phones that already have good enough cameras to enable things like discriminating vision, where model helps identify specific things that camera looks at. We're looking at the next big ag breakthrough in marginal places like Sahel. We now have an actually good chance of AI machine vision doing something we just couldn't do with mere human vision and algorithmic machine vision. Identification of pests and weeds, their eggs and larvae, etc.

And in medium to long term, it looks even better. We may have an actual viable chance of eradicating Tsetse in medium term future with AI vision. One of the main reasons why Sub-Saharan Africa is still absolutely fucked in terms of human development may actually be finally removed.

X's "automatically translate into your language" feature has actually rebuilt the tower of Babel. The main barrier in interpersonal communication came crashing down.

I suspect that minors can to an extent form contracts. For example, to buy anything from a store, you have to fulfill a contract (money for product). This does not require parental intervention. They can take on a summer job. Same thing.

Parental intervention only comes when there are contractual violations (i.e. minor shoplifts, parents are on the hook for at least some if not all of the damages). Though in some cases/places, parental acceptance can be required for taking on a job as a minor.

So the argument they're making is most certainly legally sound in this aspect. The point of contention is going to be "how much can a minor contractually agree to on his/her own" and "with this much additional obligations, how can amount of obligations for each contract be verified".

The whole thing is a horrible mess because before ease of access granted by computerization and proliferation of networking of computers, most contractual obligations required some kind of face to face verification of basics. When you applied for a summer job as a teen, you got into an interview where your identity got verified.

Meanwhile today, the issue is that due to aforementioned factors, we now have countless contracts that are made without parties ever encountering each other in a face to face situation. This seems to be, on a fundamental level, an attempt to get something that is as close to "face to face" as can be generated in age of social media. I.e. other party gets to at least verify if you're specially protected kind of a human (minor), or one that is fully legally responsible for him/herself. Something that used to be done face to face for each contract that extended significant legal obligations for both parties.

But it's clumsy to the extreme, which is likely the main reason why it's being fought over. Essentially instead of "protecting the companies from having unknowingly taken on additional obligation of contracting with a minor", which the legislation purportedly is trying to do, it instead just punishes everyone who isn't a minor (both users and companies) by forcing companies to assume that unless proven otherwise, everyone has those additional obligations of contracting with a minor.

Reconstruction of Mechanically Recorded Sound by Image Processing (2003) https://www-cdf.lbl.gov/~av/JA...

The world doesn't have 2 sides - one yours and other fox news. Most of the world lives outside of USA and Wikipedia has literally turned into a personal fiefdom of random political idiots on whatever is the current trend of Democrats.

The fact that your go-to response is hurr durr fox news bad and you dishonestly ignore that Wikipedia literally is run by people who have "engaged in off-wiki canvassing" and are "not here to constructively build the encyclopedia," - you can have your mod points and you can have your wikipedia.