Except love their daughter unconditionally.

If a human copies someone else’s art, that is copyright infringement. You say that AI works exactly the same way. Somehow you think that people should not be angry when AI is used to copy their work. If I ask you what is 2+2, will you tell me 5?

This is the man we just gave all the NHS data to.

Complaining of not following aviation rules when your military jets are repeatedly entering other countries’ airspace. His little games are tiresome at this point.

I didn’t realize that lifejackets were prone to spontaneous combustion.

Why even discuss it? Putin broke the 1994 agreement and he declared that the Minsk agreements no longer existed in 2022, just prior to invading again.

Since they speak multiple languages, they probably spend quite a lot of time thinking about the subtle differences in meaning between words, so the precise meaning of the word “polyglot” no doubt matters quite a lot to them.

They also said that they were cancelling lifetime contracts that hadn’t been used in 6 months. Hard to see how those could be sinking the company.

It isn’t the case that they have to engage in diplomacy to bring him back. They are paying El Salvador to take these prisoners. El Salvador has no reason not to hand him over.

I don’t think that the safe harbour provision should apply when the person posting is the owner of the company.

Is one of those things giving attribution? If I ask for a picture of Mount Fuji in the style of a woodblock print, can the AI tell me what its inspirations were?

AIs take away attribution as well as copyright. The original authors don’t get any credit for their creativity and hard work. That is an entirely separate thing from ownership and property.

It is not at all OK for an AI to take a work that is in the public domain, erase the author’s identity, and then reproduce it for people, claiming it as its own.

Absolutely. Trump wants to sell that info, not give it away!

On .ml, communists get called lib. Ask me how I know.

Is it not “use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against military targets in civilian areas” ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons .

Are you trying to say they’re targeting it at the combatants and therefore it is OK to use it in a civilian area?

Because the photo just above makes it pretty obvious that it isn’t a weapon that can be used in a targeted fashion.

I don’t know about Canada, but the UK has “the Crown” at its core. The Crown is not the same as the actual monarch. Property owned by the King and property owned by the Crown are not the same thing, for example.

Well, his tough talk worked with Brazil, didn’t it?

Is this supposed to be a point of contention?

Let’s have a trigger warning on that, please.

Cries in Brexit