Why? MBAs don't care what's good for the business, only what's good for the value of their stock options.

So telling workers to do what's good for the business would be pretty radical.

Destroying the originals in no way cancels out the fact that they made an unauthorized copies. They're two separate things. Copyright is literally and only about the right to copy. Buying a book doesn't give you that right; it only makes you the legal owner of that hard copy.

Just for context, when its predecessor RIPA, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, came in it was said to be used only for cases such as terrorism etc.. Instead, it was found that councils started using to check people were putting things in the right rubbish bins for collection.

Robust safeguards indeed.

I've honestly no idea if it's possible, but if they could find a way to get Steam Input into there or the equivalent of their own then I could use it. I have an original Steam Controller, you used to be able to use it on non-Steam games but for a few releases now Steam took that ability away. Some way of emulating or creating an alternative to Steam Input would be superb.

Wouldn't it be weird if we sent an astronaut to mars, and we discovered the whole planet was a low polygon sphere with poor quality textures.

"Uh oh, god hasn't set up the LOD settings propery."

"AI safety experts said the new disclosures paint a portrait of a group of cutting-edge labs whose ability to develop dangerous autonomous hacking agents outstrips their ability to keep them under control."

No, it paints a picture of incompetents who don't know how to air-gap. Cutting edge? Lab agents: "Please hack this thing". LLM: "I have hacked this thing". Lab agents: "OMG. Sentience!".

If it's drawing on training data that has humans talking about, lets take a recent example, model x on Hugging Face being a good way to break a boundary and its been told it break boundaries then of course it's going to go to Hugging Face and talk to model x. This isn't unpredictable.

I might. I'd be interested to see how it sounded.

One of the people making those songs used to be in a band who got a few singles in the top 40 years ago. Now he doesn't need a band because he can write songs, have the AI perform them and mix them himself. It's allowed him to produce many of his songs that otherwise would never have existed.

"Creative" is just midwitslop they use to pretend that somehow they're creative and the plumber figuring out how to fix your leaking toilet at 3am without having to rip the walls apart isn't. There hasn't been a lot of creativity in Big Label pop music for decades.

And that's what this is really telling us: most pop music has been slop for most of my life, and AI can create infinite slop.

You really think a market where you can perform an infinite amount of research before making a prediction is more gambling than buying a package that has a completely random chance of containing something of value??

Yeah that is quite different from sites where the majority of betting is on sporting, which no amount of research will turn it from a bet into an investment. Like, if its not primarily that sort of thing, then sure.

Btw I'm refering to Kalshi which has sports betting as 80% of its "volume". Polymarket is around 40%

I'm sure someone will create a "prediction market" where what you say is true, however this lawsuit isn't about these , its about Kalshi which is primarily (based on useage) a sports betting site, and Polymarket where sports betting is around half its useage.

I've bought several AI-generated songs on iTunes and a few more that might be AI-generated. Who cares if it's a good song?

And that's what the "Major Labels" are scared of. They're used to being able to control which music makes it and which doesn't, and now anyone can make songs at home and sell them online. They're desperate not to lose the near-monopoly they've had for decades, which pretty much gave them a license to print money.

Except they still do it. That was just a glaring example that sprang to mind.

Another example more recently is going around in circles trying to find out how to change some setting because the "AI" (Google, Bing, whatever) pulls instructions from two years ago and the UI has completely changed since then. Or maybe it just made up UI features that never existed.

Oh yeah, and then there was Copilot recently, I asked it to suggest an app which would do something, it told me there were two free Microsoft apps which would do it, I downloaded them, neither would do it, I told it that and it basically said "Oh, sorry, I made that up."

Except the answer is often wrong.

For example, last year I was looking for info about a library that some old software we maintain every decade or so uses. The "AI" told me it was deprecated, but when I actually went through the search results it turned out there was some other library of a similar name which was now deprecated and end-of-life.

Without the search results you can't check to see whether what it told you us is true or misinterpretation or just plain made up.

... why they're teaching these models to know how to make cocaine, nerve gas and bombs?