posterboy

> This is not like the Technoviking, as that was about image rights and not slanderous copy

Same thing, name rights, as long as its identifiable.

It is infuriating how you substitute "ChatGPT" for the entirely hypothetical slander machine of your own devise.

It would absolutelt have humoristic value, appeal to emotion notwithstanding.

No. If it insults anyone equally, the only imaginable motivation of its creator would be satire, that ought to be free speech protected.

If it's trained to insult a particular group of people, then the input must be curated and the warranty waver ("erroneous") would be a straight up lie unless it is just bad training data which doesn't recognize for example dark skin as human, or does recognize abortion as good practice, in which case it exceedingly unlikely that it could be directed at public figures. It's not too difficult to imagine that it would start using a euphemism of the n-word eventually, but then, eh, how did your name end up in the training data if it isn't public?

Yeah but no, the implicature still allows copyright without culpability (edited: got that mixed up). The assumption seems to be that the lack of intent in creation, where it is unpredictable, would likewise imply lack of intent to harm. But that doesn't say much.

> If the output of ChatGPT is not copyrightable because it is not created by a human,

Isn't compiler output copyrightable?

The Professor is in a good position to (decide if to) sue somebody. From the headlines I thought that's what this is about, because otherwise the headline should suffice with Professor minus "Law".

Of course there is precedent eg. with Techno Viking, a "meme" which is also difficult to attribute to a single person (but each individual hoster who neglects the man's rights).

That's not new, but that it generates news "because AI" is not surprising. People just need reminded that people oughta be reponsible. The issue is broader because incomprehensible neural networks are also used in eg. thread recognition. So employers may be worried about accountability, how much manual verification is needed.

Of course this too is nothing new, since all kinds of software has security holes buried under layers of complexity.

You might simply be under the missapprehension that news means new: »Meaning "tidings, intelligence of something that has lately taken place" is from early 15c.« (etymonline). It fits that the root of the word is probably related to "now". In Latin, whence the English word was loaned as a calque of nova, there is another word nuntius "messenger, message", which isn't even derived directly from novus. Surely this is not a supernova to you. Talk about recurrent networks, eh.

Just saying, as it were, the news item flared up because many many people have taken notice of problems that we barely understand.

But this is not phonetic. The Is in "Inglish" are hardly the same in any dialect.

And it doesn't solve the problem on the graphematic level. It ought to allow anyone to read the chosen dialect phonetically. But it suffers from an arbitrary choice of glyphs, so I have no idea how to pronounce eg. an (an actual problem I have pondered today is a-typical).

Conversely, if the spelling ought to be predictable for language learners, you are probably better of learning Mandarin (^_^)

The monopoly on violence is a fundamental concept of state theory. Formulaicly, the people constitute the state and exert power based on democratic principles.

Since intelectual property rights do not reflect a democratic process and were rather restricted because they threatened the power of the estate, their merrit is questionable.

Here's a cthird comparandum for you. Breathing is rather beneficial for literally everybody and not doing it is very detrimental, actually fatal. How do you feel about the slippery slope now?

That's a slippery Sloap argument, and an absurd one. The benefits of running to the cardio vascular system are generally seen as a positive, contrary to smoking. The threshold to overdoing it is orders of magnitudes out of proportion. And there is no common opinion on psychological impairment from running, again in contrast to the psychadelica related substance abuse.

> , one factor is the power balance of incumbent nuclear states, but [*they] does no invalidate the argument for avoiding proliferation.

Fixed that for you

> #Satisfying_6NF

6th Normal Form? I was taught that 3NF should be enough for all intents and purposes, which now sounds like the quote about 640k memory.

German uses seelische Störung certainly in legal context and it sounds very much like it was translated from psychopathie. Notably, a life-sentence is curbed at 15 years but psychological conditions may be incorrectable and require permanent security.

Störung must have an independent history, though. The correct translation of -pathy today would be Leiden, ie. Seelenleiden, which sounds like another euphemism in the euphemism treadmill.

Which logic?

It's always a matter of availability, balance, justification, right. The justification is there, so your argument is a strawman.

It would be more relevant in a direct comparison to gun control, which. Blades are fairly easy to furnish on the spot, easier than guns, so this comparison fails, too.

Balance requires a need for knives, which is difficult to put aside and certainly not the point of this argument. The ball park figure alone is not making a rational argument.

The internet is not the breaking point either way, though it could be used to implement access control.

So, I am effectively unsure if your whatabout'ish strawman is in favour of intrusive regulation.

I believe the general concensus is that it doesn't because private media companies aren't public spaces, so the company rules. How far the company enjoys freespeech, whether it extenda to their users and who gets to define hate speech I don't know, but lible is criminalized already and further analogies aren't impossible.

I mean, I could call a hackernews a punk ass neoliberal cunt and wait what happens next.

> him humiliating strangers who have done literally nothing wrong.

Seems to be an opportunity if good faith predicts that they won't do him any serious wrong.

This is nice vut not impressuve. We have had Quake Live on the browser years ago.

Generally speaking, it shouldn't be used to implement features that the browser ought to handle, like font support. The criticizm does not seem to apply here.

Strawman on top of the false scottsman. Nobody said that all Muslims are murderers.

Something that everyone can practice has to have a few simple rules that everyone can follow. That doesn't make it an ideology. It is a complex set of intervowen systems that are carried in no small part at the state level, communicated by language which is in fact a very complex system. That's an ideology insofar as the word may be related to idioma, as it were.

I mean a good part of the selection process in currating systems happens in meat space. Since that's an intelligent agent, the system in its entire does not satisfy the definition of universal turing machine.

>... implying that algorithmic attempts at creating such dynamics in the field of artificial life (aLife) are doomed to fail.

I guess they are so meta they wondered if a dedicated AI could output an AGI agent, algorithmically. As far as their colloquial definition which speaks of jury-rigging is truly intelligent, I suspect that the road to AGI would require so much human input and reboots (have you tried turning it on and off again?) that it is not predictable by any physical theory. So it's non-physical in a strong definition of physics.

On the other hand, since they argue against classical computing, it would necessarily rely on innovative developments in various hard sciences.

>I've always thought to develop AGI you really need an evolutionary iterative system that can explore an environment with sensory input and reward feedback for actions

Like Tik Tok?

>It is. There are plenty of more or less practising Muslims who behave perfectly well and are strongly opposed to theocracy.

Bit of a false scottsman. Not every Italian eats Tagliatelle and joins the Mafia but it's still an Italian recipe.

>... her faculty decided it was insufficient. So what would have been sufficient?

>That we can have a debate about, but some BS about "western values" and a strawman argument about "submitting" to "superstitions" is not even worth me caring about, ...

Difficult to have an argument about after the fact. "You are free to leave" seems to be the exact argument that was made, beyond that there is no argument that would have been sufficient. If that's not enough, it is because of superstition, for lack of a better word. And this caused a panic reaction. It would be superstition even if the sides were switched and Feedome of Speech were the deeply held, now insulted believe that would include for example showing religious imagery in class (often forbidden in school charters to create a neutral environment).

From what I read I guess that Freiheit der Lehre (freedom of lecturing) is fairly constrained and lecturers are generally treated not with the same respect as a professor for whom they work. So it is to some a degree a systematic, institutional proble about powerstructures. Not worth the risk can become either you are not worth it, subjectively, or you are btter than that, optimistically speaking. Now I don't have a cromulent quote handy on collectively held believes. Suppose there is no mainstream concensus on that.

I'm pretty sure everyone is aware that getting stabbed to death is "uncomfortable". I'd certainly not not "give a fuck" if it happened to me because I literally looked at somebody the wrong way.

It's not even an ideology if you look at it that way but it is a state religion by design, that has various implementations depending on who's to benefit. It prescribes universal obligations which they have in common. Some other dogmas are subject to interpretation.

So the question needs to be cast in another light, sure. It's a hard problem that isn't solved by calling on an ideology.

That's an interesting way to put it. There is some interest, no doubt, and there is some potential abusing that information.

Since the information was committed knowingly and willingly to the public domain, though I do not know much about it to begin with, I don't see how GDPR applies at all.

Checking is the only reason that hashes are provided.