Even if the customer authorized the transaction? So now all the customers have to pay higher fees to cover for idiots getting scammed. Is the Bank of England going to start refunding people who get scammed out of cash under the mattress?
The left has done more damage you our education system by removing standards and getting rid of separate schools for the smartest students than the right ever could by cutting funding. Most recently in California they got rid of calculus class in high school. Meanwhile we continue to increase spending and are near the highest in the world and our education system is trash https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd/education-exp...
Stealing a car deprives the previous owner of the car of possession and use. It is a criminal charge and you will be punished for it regardless of the monetary value of the car. The owner of the car could also sue the thief for financial damages caused by not having the car for a month, which won't be more than the cost of an equivalent rental for a month, so it's not even worth bothering.
Copyright infringement does not deprive the copyright owner of its property and is not criminal. So in this case only the lawsuit part applies. The owner is only entitled to the monetary damages, which is the lost sale. But in this case the sale price was paid to the owner 1 month later, so the only real damages will be the interest the publisher could have earned if they had got their money one month earlier.
> It's not adding to the cultural expression like a parody would.
Says who?
> Is AI contributing to education and/or culture _right now_, or is it trying to make money?
How on earth are those things mutually exclusive? Also, whether or not it's being used to make money is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is copyright infringement.
But if you did pirate the book, and let's say it cost $50, and then you used it to write a play based on that book and made $1 million selling that, only the $50 loss to the publisher would be relevant to the lawsuit. The fact that you wrote a non-infringing play based on it and made $1 million would be irrelevant to the case. The publisher would have no claim to it.
But there is the issue of whether there are damages. If my LLM can reproduce 10 random paragraphs of a Harry Potter book, it's obvious that nobody would have otherwise purchased the book if they couldn't read those 10 paragraphs. So there will not be any damages to the publisher and the lawsuit will be tossed. There is a threshold of how much of it needs to be reproduced, and how closely, but it's a subjective standard and not some hard line like if it's > 50%.
Why do profits, and the stock market, continue going up then? I've heard this nonsense about corporate short termism for decades, and the long term just never seems to arrive.
I don't really buy this since China has industrialized rapidly without much population growth at all. They have built infrastructure like high speed rail that we are unable to build in the US, so I also don't buy the "fully deployed modern infrastructure" line.
Yeah, I'm sure Trump raving about Obama invading Iran was part of a galaxy brain geopolitical master plan hatched back when he was just a real estate developer / minor reality TV star who wouldn't even run for president for another 5 years and not just random attempts to go viral.
I guess we'll see what the fallout from this attack is, but if there isn't anything major (and that's where my money is) then it would seem that just dropping bunker busters on their nuclear facilities and then going home was actually the best solution all along.
Every accusation from Trump is some random line he pulled out of his ass on the spot, and people like you keep falling for it and trying to divine some grand strategy out of it.
They're not going to escalate. They're already getting their ass handed to them by Israel and the last thing they want is to throw down with their other enemies in the region right now. You are correct that there will be no ground invasion, so there is no existential threat to the government. This means they have no incentive to do something stupid that will make anyone change their mind on that invasion.
Rights don't apply when you are entering another country. Americans have the right to bear arms too, but good luck with that argument when get caught at the border with weapons.
It's pretty pathetic to include a scolding essay at the beginning of the book. Their sanctimonious drivel stands in total contrast to the work of a brilliant author that they feel the need to mar with the inclusion of their commentary. Nobody would ever read it if they didn't include it in a book that people actually care about.
This is both something I know is true, and also something I struggle to understand. I can't get my head around why company leadership would ever consider true anonymous feedback from down the org chart as anything but an incredibly valuable resource. Surely this could be a bad thing for some execs who are doing a terrible job and this would be evidence against them, but I would think that the majority would still want that information so they could remove those members from their ranks.
We operate cars on the road with not only no centralized system, but also minimally defined and enforced protocol, and yet Waymo has achieved a near zero collision rate inside a swarm of cars that are not running equivalent software. And this is in a situation where cars are only a few feet from each other while operating at top speed. So you can come up with a million objections but they are all solvable. As for automation failure, the rate of that can be easily made lower than the rate of human failure, which currently is fatal to a plane.
If the plane is able to communicate with ATC it is able to broadcast to the other planes that it is on an emergency landing, so this is not an issue. Even if it has lost all communication this is still not an issue because all the sensors of the other planes can see it. So if the disabled plane immediately goes for an emergency landing, all other planes in the area are able to see its position and that it is not responding to pings, and therefore set safe courses that avoid it. This really isn't a very difficult problem.
Setting a protocol to handle air traffic control and collision prevention in airspace around airports is a 100% automatable problem. You don't even need a centralized control system. This can be handled entirely with software running on each plane. Same way a flock of birds can fly and never collide with each other.
It's obviously 3 because the entire point of the NYT is that it's a newspaper and probably 99% of their traffic is from articles new enough that they haven't had time to go into the training data. So anybody who wanted to use ChatGPT to breach the NYT paywall couldn't get any new articles. Also there are so many other ways to breach a paywall that you would have to be insane to try to do it through prompt engineering ChatGPT. The whole case is a scam and I hope the court makes them pay OpenAI's legal fees.
A liberal court will probably start drawing exceptions to 1A out of thin air like "misinformation" and "hate speech." I'd rather stick with what we have.