jonkho

Yes every homeowner at this point would be confused how this is not just a straight up accidental water damage claim. She has a mortgage so insurance is a must.

This story sounds fishy.

So she doesn’t have homeowners insurance that covers accidental water damage?

No one is being shafted. With each paycheck, the obligations of the company are met.

Yep people talk like they are owed something. They are not. Outstanding obligations are met with each paycheck.

But fiat currencies were designed to be inflationary which makes them shitty store of value. There is no point in saving in fiat today when it’s value will be lower tomorrow.

Yes and we need tools to route around stupidity to keep checks and balances on stupidity. Otherwise locked-in stupidity can get even more stupid and that’s how suffering occur at scale.

Would you be annoyed if you owned shares of a company and the company prints new shares to dilute the value of your holdings?

Andrew Tate is a chess player and promoted chess.

Andrew Tate was the most internet famous person for a period of time with a huge following in the teen male demographic.

Possible cause-effect.

A fresh mortgage initiated today might be similar to current rents.

I think what the OP meant is a mortgage that was initiated 15 to 20 years ago is far cheaper than rent today which is true.

That would have to be a 1% real yield on top on the massive XX% inflation the free money would cause! So XX + 1% would be the nominal yield to make it a viable business.

Prepare for permanent stimulus checks and permanent large annual inflation?

Have you tried parasite cleanse? I’ve used veterinary dewormers to great effect. I’m also surprised no one has mention doing sinus rinses to clear their breathing problems.

> That statement is incorrect, the logic is flawed. Just because a tool has both legal and illegal uses does not necessarily have any bearing whatsoever on whether the tool’s distribution is legal. Tools that are illegal to distribute can have legal uses, and that does not make them legal to distribute.

Making statements and assuming the truth without reason nor evidence nor examples to back it up. Logical fallacy of begging the question. You have also not reasoned how freely available information is “illegal” to read/index/store amongst other things.

Not here to win you over. The audience can see how weak your position is. My last response here.

If you understand that the model is a tool, and that as a tool it can be used to generate activity that can violate laws and be used for other perfectly legal activities, then as a broad principle the distribution of said tool is not a violation of said laws.

Cars, phones, guns, knives (practically anything) can be used to generate activities that break the law. They are perfectly legal to distribute. The onus on the legality of the activity lies with the end user.

How is creating the model in my brain not illegal (as in my thoughts are not illegal) yet if it’s in silicon it would be illegal? Please give a well reasoned answer. This is not a strawman no matter how many times you insist on using that label.

Secondly you seem to be conflating the “tool itself” to “what the tool can do” to be strongly equivalent. I.e if the tool has the capability to violate laws, then the existence and distribution of the tool itself also violates said law. (Not so)

My claim has always been that

1) the creating of the model is does not violate copyright. Claiming otherwise means running same algorithm in meatspace would violate copyright laws, which implies thoughts violates laws which is absurd.

2) distribution of the model does not violate copyright laws because the models themselves do not contain latent copies of the work. The model itself is not the work nor a recognizable copy of it nor can it be reconstituted back to the work. It is a tool more analogous to photoshop where the tool can be used to reproduce copyrighted work, yes, by the end user (where I believe the responsibility lies). But the tool itself is not copyrighted work. Microsoft word can be used to generate copyrighted books if I’m correct. Or I can hire smarter tool: a human writer to produce copyrighted works. Is the writer-for-hire illegal? Or his employability is illegal? Of course not. I believe the law will eventually take the position that AI model is a tool.

> You have to acquire the source material legally. You can be in violation of copyright for copying music you didn’t buy.

This is incorrect. As another poster mentioned, it is not illegal to read a stolen book. It is only illegal to steal the book.

Secondly the source material is acquired legally since it is open to consumption on the open internet.

Thirdly model does not contain “latent copies of the source material”. By using a simple test (currently legal standard) that if I showed you the node weights and counts of the network no person even trained in the art can identify it to a specific piece of work. Therefore it is at best a derivative, reasonably distinct.

So we are in agreement that it is not violating copyright laws to run the algorithm on copyrighted works to produce the model, because if it is, my thoughts could be illegal too. In the end only actions such as reproducing the work and distributing it can be a violation. In other words, the end user of the model is the one to be held responsible if they reproduce and distribute the copyrighted material.

You are loading up my question with your own assumptions. My point specifically is if I’m just observing a piece of work and running the NN algorithm in my brain, does this constitute as illegal thought then? Do my thoughts violate rights? Note that I am not “reproducing” anything (whatever that term means). I am just observing the work and running the algorithm in my brain while silently sitting.

So if I visually look at a piece of work and “run” the NN training algorithm in my meat-space brain or even on pen and paper, do I need to ask for permission for doing so? Or is permission required only if silicon chips “run” the algorithm? Asking for a friend.

The company made the hires to the presumed benefit for the company. The company will pay.

It means he will pay severance, benefits for months even after the people are gone.

It’s just that people are so used to this entitlement that they overlook it by default.

The fed’s plan is to “lower demand” which is just another way of saying it will make things more unaffordable on net, not less. So this makes sense.

“everything would be fixed and we wouldn't have any environmental problems.”

Ah…age-old gaslight tactic. Using words like “everything” “all” “any” to encapsulate your opponents argument then using a non-sequitor counter-point (leaded gasoline) to argue a tangent point (a point not relating to interest rates).

Let’s zoom out a bit. The big picture is that by using discrimination they are not hiring based on merit and therefore the ability to produce the best goods and services is impaired. If these discriminatory hiring practices put them at a productive disadvantage, then companies that hire out of merit should, over time, outcompete them in a free market and put them out of business. No regulation required.

This is an uncomfortable topic that realistically serves no one’s interests to discuss.

Cash spent on housing, universities etc doesn’t “sink into a hole and disappear”. Someone else on the other side of the transaction got it and can spend it. On the other hand, raising taxes to collect said cash to neutralize the debt would be a “sink”.

That’s appealing to authority.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

1929 was caused by excess credit issuance. True, that the gold standard was in place, but the spirit to keep credit in check was not. The federal reserve already existed, so this excess was made possible by their control of credit.

I’m saying the history of boom and bust is from excessive money printing, and later on from the contraction of the money supply.