Shazbot

My guess is search for toddlers, whose parents handed them a phone to keep busy while they rest or do something else. They're the only demographic that does not know how to spell, or knows too few words to search effectively. But considering the American education system this could also apply to students who are illiterate despite completing the grade every year.

As someone who has spent their life translating for family this isn't surprising. Nor is it any easier when they bring me poorly translated documents and hope I decipher machine diarrhea. The tech is still years behind being real world ready, especially with anything above 6th grade grammar and nuanced word choice that depends on context and sometimes dialect. But free is free so 🤷

The missing factor is intent. Make a random image, that's that. But if proven that the accused made efforts to recreate a victim's likeness that shows intent. Any explicit work by the accused with the likeness would be used to prove the charges.

Reading these comments has shown me that most users don't realize that not all working artists are using 1099s and filing as an individual. Once you have stable income and assets (e.g. equipment) there are tax and legal benefits to incorporating your business. Removing copyright protections for large corporations will impact successful small artists who just wanted a few tax breaks.

I'm convinced the AI had the hand on a loop. It's like watching someone's first presentation in speech and debate class. It will look better eventually, but I doubt it'll figure out the subtle emphasis great body language adds to speech.

The short version is that there are two images and sidecar/xmp file sandwiched into one file. First is the standard dynamic range image, what you'd expect to see from a jpeg. Second is the gain map, an image whose contents include details outside of SDR. The sidecar/xmp file has instructions on how to blend the two images together to create a consistent HDR image across displays.

So its HDR-ish enough for the average person. I like this solution, especially after seeing the hellscape that is DSLR raw format support.

Gayle McLaughlin used to be the Green Party's best example of what they could do at the local level, until she left in 2016 to vote for Bernie Sanders. I'm fairly certain she is the outlier.

It's likely the crew was using fresnel lights which are bright and very hot. You can easily burn yourself or set fire to delicate objects after prolonged use. Not impossible to imagine a crew member moving the lights, leaving them on and highly focused to imitate a distant light source; like a magnifying glass under the sun.

It's a tentative agreement. Meaning they have a general framework for the contract, but nothing is signed as certain details are still being worked on. Negotiations are still ongoing.

Especially when they're non food/textile producing ones that are literally used to just get drunk.

Just for clarity agave can be used as a sweetener, edible, it's fibers can be used in textiles, can be made into soap, and has some medicinal uses. Once the market saturates with spirits it's other uses will likely be marketed to fully utilize crop yields.

I feel that this can be addressed at application step. Any date of birth proven to be under 18 cannot apply without an in person interview. This protects minors from taking on debt without fully understanding the implications, and puts responsibility on the lender for providing credit to a minor. If credit is provided and defaults the debt should be the lender's problem for taking such a huge risk.

Alternatively, the same premise with the exception that an adult is required as a cosigner. If the account defaults the burden is shifted to the adult as they have the cognizance to understand and take responsibility.

I wouldn't outright ban giving accounts to minors. My parents opened a savings account in my name and kept it in good standing. This gave me a big credit boost that my peers never had. But I realize I am an exception, and the problem others face is very real.

It is pretty idiotic imo that the music industry can ban people from showing song lyrics. Iirc you have to get a license to list song lyrics since they’re technically a copyrighted work.

Here's the thing, if its copyright-able you can get a license for it. Amazon already has licenses to sell and stream music, that part of the usage agreement was already negotiated. A simple analogy would be you want to buy three games from a store, you pay for two but leave with three. Obviously the store is not happy with you. You've shown you're legally compliant with two games, yet took the third without paying.

But there are some interesting caveats in the article:

The lawsuit, which is the first from a music publisher against an AI company over the use of lyrics, was filed in the wake of the Authors Guild — representing a host of prominent fiction authors including George R.R. Martin, Jonathan Franzen and John Grisham — suing OpenAI last month.

This makes sense since lyrics aren't all that different from poetry, and whole albums could be considered a collection of short works. So loosening the copyright protections may give AI companies more data to work with, but it would end up hurting authors (lyricists, screen writers, novelists) and related fields. A real world fallout would be SAG-AFTRA strikers losing royalties and bargaining power, while empowering and enriching the big studios' own AI models.

I wanted to see if Anthropic, the company being sued, has the money on hand to pay for licenses, to square up legally if you will. Well, doesn't look like Anthropic is hurting for cash as of 3rd quarter 2023.

Amazon said on Monday that it’s investing up to $4 billion into the artificial intelligence company Anthropic in exchange for partial ownership and Anthropic’s greater use of Amazon Web Services (AWS), the e-commerce giant’s cloud computing platform.

Even if the licenses were 10 million in total, that would leave 3,990,000,000 on hand; or .0025% of what Amazon offered. I don't see how they'd walk away without settling for the licensing fees and legal expenses. They're financially secure and partially owned by a company that is legally compliant with its own handling of intellectual property.