A better headline for this quote from the YouTube CEO is, "YouTube CEO Doesn't Understand How Own Service Works At a Fundamental Level," because you have to download videos to see them. If you don't download them, you can't see them.

The browser you are reading this comment with, downloaded the entire page this comment is on, and is rendering it from your device locally as stored data in the cache. Any given video is downloaded in the process of viewing it, in order to view it. If it's against the TOS to download videos, then it is against the TOS to watch videos on YouTube at all.

You also don't even need to agree to the TOS to view videos anyway; the TOS is only for people who signed up for an account.

It is also wildly preposterous to believe that training an AI on YouTube videos is somehow different than a person learning information from videos in just the normal process of watching them; imagine if they were offended that kids learned computer science by watching a video, because a "copy" of the video was stored in their own human memory to recall and apply later in practice (aka, learning). Training an AI on books, video, music, etc, is much akin to the process as simply consuming video the way any person would.

For me, this AI / copyright tussle will always boil down to 4 ideas:

1. The copyright office itself lauded the use of clips from Twilight and Buffy edited together to create a *transformative* work (their words) but the creator actually used nothing but clips from the actual original properties. The work is called Buffy Vs Edward, and had a lengthy rights-debacle surrounding it, and to me this is exactly the same argument rehashed all over again, that I thought was already settled eons ago.

2. It will always be akin to me, as a portrait/landscape/etc painter complaining about the advent of photography. Where would technology be today -- ANYTHING at all that is a photograph -- without photography? From the painter's perspective, "ALL YOU DO" is press a button to open a shutter briefly, and capture what takes potentially hundreds or thousands of hours of trial and error to paint out by hand. Had the painters had their say that photography would destroy their industry, and had photography not been allowed to be copyrighted on the basis of of the user "ONLY" performing a simple action, then easily millions of aspects of modern life would not even exist today. Saying it is amoral or copyright-wrecking/ etc for using AI to write something with "ONLY" having to do something simple, on the basis or on the "theft" of someone else's industry or trade, is just abject wildly preposterous.

3. The idea that AI writing can't be copyrighted is also absurdly absurd. Do you know how image editing programs work? Just BRUSHES alone in photoshop or procreate or whatever (for example, a spray paint brush), make all of the fine detail of individual pixels way faster in a single click and ISN'T the artists putting down each individual pixel individually. Copy & paste, itself, is NOT a human writing out all of the text again. Think about a HAMMER. Can a person hammer a nail into a board without a forge to make the nail, a hammer to drive it in, or a saw to cut the board? The person building the house can't do all those things with just their fingers; they have to use a tool. So, AI being something a "human has not made" is just as preposterous to me as saying someone cannot own rights to a sculpture, because it was the chisel that did the work, whereas the person's fingers didn't actually carve out the image. It is JUST a tool, like any other tool. Shall we ban all photography, shall we sue photography, since you can take a picture of a book? Shall the copyright office halt all copyrights to photography, on the basis that a person did not manually affix every photon to the film, but rather pressed a button and all of the photons were arranged very neatly? Grammarly, for example, eliminates needing to learn grammar, because the program will just correct it for you, so all grammar teachers are out of a job basically. And yet, do grammar teachers still have a job? Are works which use Grammarly INELIGIBLE to be copyrighted, since a non-human made the corrections? Very very very obviously no, but somehow, wave a magic wand, somehow, some mythical AI is different?

4. It strays dangerously into "the gun killed him" rather than "she killed him with a gun" territory. People use weapons against people; the weapon itself didn't do the thing. AI didn't inappropriately consume (which is actually just ordinary reading and learning) a copyrighted work; a person or group of people used AI to consume it, etc.

Every discussion of every kind is semantics; it is impossible to have any degree of exchanged of ideas without semantics. It's like saying, "Well you just like to use a language we both use, and I won't stand for it," with the reply using that same language.

The damage certainly won't be repaired by people who refuse to imagine how it could be. It is most definitely reparable.

The damage is not even obvious. There are already lines and paths, and even what appears to be an airstrip, and the outline section has to be pointed out to tell the difference.

Also, the hummingbird itself wasn't damaged, just the land next to it. It's like cutting down a single tree next to Mt Rushmore.

I really don't see the problem. It seems super easy to fix. I wouldn't issue an apology either. WAY overdramatized story.

I was under the impression this was a joke post about Zuckerberg proposing to create a grand clone army..

[citation needed]. Dictionaries observe the way language has been used in the past, but do not codify the limitations by which language may only be used. The way words enter the dictionary is generally by tally that lexicographers keep in observing past use of words out in the wild, so to speak. Grammar texts and dictionaries are merely descriptive of the most common ways the ordinary commoner has used the word in order of popularity -- it does not prescribe the ways in which a word may only be employed.

Incidentally, a few weeks ago I placed an order for this Amazon listing for Eleventy-billion tons of snow, deliverable directly to one of our lakes.
There was a 4.49 shipping charge, so I figure I could do my part to help out with that much investment, at least.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IISFL64/ref=pe_385040_30332190_TE_3p_dp_1

I'm a resident of WF (and had to dig up a years-old account to login although I do read frequently but never comment much, so apologies for the cheap-shot url username).. The new water is supposedly on, but I can't tell a difference.

It's strange to me that there is all that much of a fuss with the locals, considering the fact that the process prior to this required treatment of said wastewater and greywater that was eventually let back out into the ordinary water table, became grimy with exposed air and otherwise ground contaminants, and was just filtered back to the city again through the lakes all over again anyway.

When suggested that there was no telling how many people had drowned in the lakes, how many cars had been run off the road into them and rusted over and still leaking gasoline and oil, and not to mention how many dead animals and super-toxic algae were present in the lake in the first place that we were "drinking" before this new filtered idea came about, they tend to clam up (perhaps from being grossed out by my description).

The city put out a lovely and sciencey YouTube video (which is now a year old), interviewing local chemists and otherwise credible local water experts who examined the setup and offered their input on it, here, for those interested in some of the more technical aspects. I've tried to link to it in most discussions I find online, but even still there are only 2790 views currently, out of a city of 100k+ pop, which is perhaps indicative of how terrible of a PR team our city does genuinely have. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MKrU1yi5Yc

Possibly the biggest local water controversy aside from the "poo-water" issue is how our city operates a water park, of all things. Supposedly it creates more profit that investment and is using outside, trucked-in water that is filtered and recirculated within its own closed system, but that doesn't stop torrents of naysayers leaping at every opportunity to inject it as shitstorm material, instantly derailing any city-admin discussion.

I was under the impression 'prior art' referred to an actual already-existing patent, not that it existed somewhere else before.