UBI needs to be administered by the government. Opt-in at a private level creates some weird dynamics, not least of all in the legal relationship between participants and the intermediary.
I would be critical of such a program even if it was proposed by a stable, highly-visible organization. A kickstarter is a huge red flag here. I hope the existing investors land safely.
Companies that sign onto the code are agreeing to multiple principles, including that their AI systems are transparent about where and how information they collect is used, and that there are methods to address potential bias in a system.
In addition, they agree to human monitoring of AI systems and that developers who create generative AI systems for public use create systems so that anything generated by their system can be detected.
“Stifling innovation”
Yall, this is pretty basic stuff. Don’t cry wolf too soon if you want anyone to believe your feigned concerns later.
I'd say they should have to follow the most-restrictive license of all of their training data, and that existing CC/FOSS licenses don't count because they were designed for use in a pre-LLM world.
It seems like a pretty reasonable request. But people like free stuff, and when they think about who will get screwed by this they like to imagine that they're sticking it to the biggest publishers of mass media.
But IRL, those publishers are giddy with the idea that instead of scouting artists and bullying them into signing over their IP, they can just summon IP on demand.
The people who will suffer are the independents who refused to sign over their IP. They never got their payday, and now they never will either.
Here's a few things to consider, but I'm hardly the person to give an authoritative list.
We can support a crapton more people if we all go Amish. We gotta reduce growth to a global lottery system 30 years ago if we want everyone in the world to live like a median American.
This isn't a one-size-fits-all-age answer, either. People need more resources as they get older, and contribute less work in return. An aging population means more economic stress on the younger population, and less economic output relative to each senior citizen means less access to medical care.
Some things are getting bad faster than others, some things are closer to breaking points, etc.
If we assume only tiny incremental improvements for centuries to come, then we're preparing for something very different than if we're trying to keep research investment steady or even accelerate progress on things like fusion, carbon removal, microplastics remediation, and power distribution and storage.
Some philosophies say that limiting a person's reproduction is categorically immoral, even if the predictable consequence is that everyone dies. Some TESCREAL dudes say we should use nukes cuz the ends justify the means.
We have lived experience that an aging population isn't great for getting effective policy in place.
Population change policies certainly won't be done globally in lockstep, which means in order to stabilize local economies, there will be more immigration for places where the internal population growth is slowing/reversing. That can easily lead to xenophobia, which could destabilize everything. It's hard to fight global climate change when you're dealing with local fascism.
etc.
That's why I can pretty much only reliably say "people who don't want kids... not being forced to have kids... is an unambiguously good thing" and I can't extend that to people who do want kids.
Fewer unwanted kids, I can get behind.
If you’re talking about global sustainability, it’s a little more complicated than just “less is better”.
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
Introduced in 2006, as of August 2023 it has been adopted by sixteen states and the District of Columbia. These jurisdictions have 205 electoral votes, which is 38% of the Electoral College and 76% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.
most of the copyrighted material belongs to companies, fuck companies
Yeah, that does seem to be the center of it.
I don't know what to say to those people.
Cuz they're not wrong. The practical effect of current IP law is to protect the business models of parasitic holding companies whose main role in producing art is to ensure that it is an effective financial instrument.
So from that perspective... Why would I respect Disney's intellectual property rights?
But I recoil at the idea that this means we shouldn't bestow any rights or protections to creative works. It seems to me that the biggest problem with IP rights is that creators are immediately bullied into signing over all of those rights to platforms/publishers/distributors.
And that immediate signing-over to mega corps... is exactly what is going on with OpenAI! But at massive scale!
It's really strange, isn't it? You'd think that fediverse users, out of anyone, would be more skeptical of companies trying to consolidate access to user-generated content, take ownership over it, and monetize it. I imagine most of us are Reddit refugees in some sense. Did we learn nothing?
Oh, I know this one!
There’s Nothing Wrong With Kids These Days
Kids! They’re lazy, narcissistic, and disrespectful — or so says the older generation. But when you look back through history, you’ll discover that older generations have been saying a version of the same thing for thousands of years. Our question is: Why? And we found an answer.
Actually pretty amazing that they are willing to scrap it and keep researching instead of just going with it and saying "We did it! We did the sustainability thing! Now please resume your normal purchasing schedule."
Haha, I absolutely agree. They're a platform company, and well... platforms gonna platform.
I've just been trying to keep my powder dry when it comes to AI discussions on Lemmy. There are a lot of users on Lemmy that are unconditionally pro-AI, so I don't wanna make too many assertions beyond my core criticisms.
I had the same thought, so I put the article’s URL into Ground News: 6 sources talking about this story, with popular.info being labeled as “high factuality”.
Pleasantly surprised, I guess.