Mac on the other hand are for coders that havn't [sic] learned linux yet, ...

I used Linux and Solaris for many years, but then MacOS X came out and I switched since it's a BSD-ish environment and all normal Unix software compiles and runs just fine on it. I'd much rather focus on actually coding than doing sys-admin stuff. I gladly let Apple take care of that.

.. and the Constitution amended to require it.

The Constitution has been for some time and will continue to be for the foreseeable future a read-only document. The US has become too politically polarized to meet the requirements of a Constitutional Amendment.

That's like saying you shouldn't lock your doors and windows because a determined thief will break in regardless.

A simple deny-list is all that's needed to implement that. You don't need AI in the browser .

FTFS:

The reason why they're putting in the systems is to collect information." Von Tetzchner said that AI in browsers presents the same problem as social media algorithms that decide what people see based on collected data.

A browser already has access to every website you visit and every value of every form-fill. How would using AI in the browser enable collecting more information? What information?

And a browser is supposed to go to whatever URL I specify and render the site. How can it control what I see?

On the other hand, unless companies were allowed to profit from life-saving technology, there would be no incentive to invest in the R&D to invent it if another company could come along and just duplicate the technology. Or you could develop such technology only in government labs. But the funding for that can't compare to corporate funding, especially in the US of late.

⦠it's got a long, long way to go before it can replace human interaction.

While not exactly the same since it's not AI, some guy married an anime character. Different strokes I guess..

And section 230 allows them to do both. You don't understand section 230. See here.

You're confused or replying to the wrong person. I never made any arguments regarding human evolution or historical diets nor did I make any argument against anything.

My guess is because vegetarians believe it will be easier to convince omnivores to be vegetarians if there were at least a transition-period meat-substitute product to make the transition easier, i.e., not have to give up burgers cold turkey.

I don't get why you or anyone puts up with such people. I'd start the dinner on time. If that person misses it, oh well. Actions should have consequences.

Not directly. But if you own and administer the site hosting a page containing such a link, you can write a crib job that goes through all the hosted HTML files looking for such links and effectively "click" them. But if you can do that, you could almost as easily replace the goo.gl links.

Though I didn't plan on it, my phone's area code doesn't match my geographic area code, so allegedly local calls from my phone's area code aren't actually geographically local to me. So I'm not interested in such calls.

As far as the rest, whether they spoof the numbers or not doesn't matter since I'm not interested in talking to anybody from their alleged area codes anyway.

Sure, some spam calls would get through from my geographic area code since it would be white listed, but it would still be a huge improvement. It's rare I get a spam call from my geographic area code now anyway.

What I want is deny/allow lists based on entire area codes.

If I read copyrighted material and then write my own story using information in what I read is that infringement?

It depends. If you wrote the same story, but with just the names of characters and places changed, then yes. In general, it depends on how similar your story is to the original.

Do clif notes have to pay for the rights to publish notes on other authors books?

No. Their notes were written by them and so are copyrighted by them. If they give excerpts, that falls under fair use. They can't quote the entire book, however, even if they give notes on every paragraph.

Isn't this is what ChatGPT does?

There are two parts to this: whether the copy of what CharGPT was trained on was a legally obtained copy in the first place and whether ChatGPT can be induced to regurgitate verbatim copies. The NYT demonstrated that, with the right prompting, ChatGPT can be induced to regurgitate copies of NYT articles.

Once I learn about something I am able to tell people what I have learned. Am I breaking the law if I tell my grandkids about a story I read.

It depends how you tell them. If you give, for example, highlights, then no. If you write down a copy and give them the copy, then yes. Also note that, assuming you either paid for your copy of the book or you borrowed it from a library, then the copy you used was a legally authorized copy to begin with.

I just don't see a lot of difference between asking an AI a question and having it tell me what it has learned than asking a human and having them tell me what they learned assuming they were trained on the same materials.

In many cases, ChatGPT used unauthorized copies to begin with. At that point, they're already guilty of copyright infringement. If the book the human read was an unauthorized copy, then that human is guilty of copyright infringement. Whether they tell you anything is irrelevant: they're already guilty.

Assuming both legally obtained the info they were trained on.

Bingo.