If revenue was not pooled across subscribers you wouldn’t have any incentive for fraud in the system. If instead of taking all (royalty related) revenue, and dividing it by all streams from all artists, you divided the portion of the subscription for royalties from each subscriber across the set of songs THEY streamed, a bot playing 10 million streams in a month from their account of one artist would pay one subscriptions worth of royalties to that artist, vs a measurable percentage of all subscriber revenue. And if you subscribe to the service, and just listened to one band, that band would get the full royalties from your account.

If a bot wants to pay $10 to get $2 to an artist, go ahead, but other fan money is unaffected. This is 100% technically feasible, but would tend to make many mid level successful artists, vs a few mega stars, so will probably never happen. So weird how aligned incentives == aligned outcomes.

Interesting issue with Turing tests: what are the ramifications if a machine passes the test for a specific human judge? And if the "testing" is not a formal evaluation period by a skeptical mind, but an ongoing conversation where the user starts with alternate goals (task management, coding, organization, etc)? And if the "AI" involved is completely amoral and interested only in "pleasing" the person in a way that generates more prompts in the future?

I am very concerned about the outcomes in the article, but even more concerned that this is probably the tip of the iceberg, as companies further iterate on LLMs and usage continues to increase.

Titanfall 2 still is amazing. it still stands up, even today, to all us wanna be mech warriors out there. I'm not sure how much it would cost to "remaster" it to the latest game engines and platforms, but if they're not going to do that, it might be a killer way to bring it back to the masses... 10 years later.

Till we have our Y2K moment... That they plead all us old guys to come back and debug their AI code.

In terms from XKCD, It's definitely a way to see it. Although as the world evolves, we as a society collectively view these places to be the new town square.

https://about.fb.com/news/2019...

Well is it, or isn't it? I don't know how to think of it other than false advertising. You're providing your data and in turn not receiving the services that you in turn traded for.

Can we also think of it instead of destroying them, that they were mashing them together? As soon as I saw the crusher, they're probably saying that this thing does all these things, which pretty much the previous iPad did too.

An unpopular way to look at it, but aren't there any pros to rising CO2 emissions (I understand the Cons) but isn't another affect is higher crop yields, higher plant growth (possibly in the rainforests), NASA published an article that basically said it's making the earth greener for now.

From the article:

Green leaves use energy from sunlight through photosynthesis to chemically combine carbon dioxide drawn in from the air with water and nutrients tapped from the ground to produce sugars, which are the main source of food, fiber and fuel for life on Earth. Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth.

While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.

Which right? Do you mean the right to manufacture or sell alcohol? Because drinking it was still legal (if you were considering that the right.)

"On January 17, 1920, 100 years ago, America officially went dry. Prohibition, embodied in the US Constitution's 18th Amendment, banned the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol. Yet it remained legal to drink, and alcohol was widely available throughout Prohibition, which ended in 1933."

https://www.bu.edu/articles/20....

Freaking semantics, am I right?

Not really a mystery. Click the article link, and watch the video. The Army hospital is clearly visible in the background, and one way street exiting the hospital with no entry lane (just a bike lane). So they all turn on the one block long road (15 ave) get to the one way (wrong way) street) in front of the hospital and then turn around and go back.

The video makes it pretty clear what is going on. Street view on google maps also clearly shows the one way street going the wrong way and the bike lane at the border of the houses and the hospital street.

So nothing dodgy at all.

I don't think the tool's a joke and or practically useless. I think there's quite a few things that it can help with certain mundane tasks, and by the way forget that it's in beta, it's also the first version of this project. The applications of GPT-3 in general (which I'm pretty positive GH CoPilot) can assist with all sorts of things, is the results perfect, far from it. However as of right now as a code completion tool it's just astonishing, that it does feel good enough to be like a junior programmer sitting and paired up with you.

Just how it predicts comments, and assists in documentation has been incredible. Outputting interfaces, or general programming tasks it's pretty spot on. General functions like sorting or other things like that you really don't need to think about. It understands your interfaces / protocols / etc.

I think the issue we should be discussing is with the in-question GPL code, how truly unique is it? Do we have an example of a line that CoPilot produced unmistakably coming from a particular project that is purely unique to that?

So we should remove all choices/liberties where it is inefficient? Or just the ones that are perceived to benefit the average / majority? But i think this argument is not how the line is form but who gets to stand in line. At some point, what if your thinking doesn't align with the norm? Well I guess you'll have no other choice but to get in line.

i understand the argument you are making, unfortunately social media is in a category that is totally different than bakeries. Therefore there are different variables to the equation that we must consider. how much of a sway does what you read have on your view on a topic? how do you consume much of those news and opinions? even if the answer is close to zero, ask yourself about other people.

this is a free speech issue, not a freedom of religion issue (which is usually the reasons cited for denying cakes to a couple lovebirds )

Social Media's reach is too powerful, it is used as a public forum, and almost needs to be regulated as such. The slippery slope is when people start banning points of view who will be there to defend you when someone doesn't like your message?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

... youâ(TM)ve exceeded your posts for the month, or viewed your timeline for the 3rd time. Please try Platinum which gives you the ability to Post / Browse Timeline / Like.

There's a 20 factor test, I don't know how current it is, but one of the stipulations inside of it is:

The extent to which services performed by the worker are a key aspect of the regular business of the company. If a worker provides services that are a key aspect of the company's regular business activity, it is more likely that the company will have the right to direct and control his or her activities. For example, if a law firm hires an attorney, it is likely that it will present the attorney's work as its own and would have the right to control or direct that work. This would indicate an employer-employee relationship.

Now in the case of Uber, driving someone to their destination to me seems like a major part of Uber's business.

I don't know how many games have turned killing Chinese into entertainment value? This isn't a game made by a game company. This was developed by the PLA. Did America's Army developed for the US Army attack Chinese, or really anyone? Propaganda is propaganda.