Thanks ai for the generic answer
FatCat
joined 3 years ago
Mamdani doesn't have one policy that is socialist. His policies are center right at best if you evaluate them on a non americanoid political scale.
Nah
Yes because communist countries have ellegant urban planning ๐คก
Thank you for proompting an excellent comment with a suffiecient amont of bulletpoints.
โข โข โข
Those claiming AI training on copyrighted works is "theft" misunderstand key aspects of copyright law and AI technology. Copyright protects specific expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves. When AI systems ingest copyrighted works, they're extracting general patterns and concepts - the "Bob Dylan-ness" or "Hemingway-ness" - not copying specific text or images.
This process is akin to how humans learn by reading widely and absorbing styles and techniques, rather than memorizing and reproducing exact passages. The AI discards the original text, keeping only abstract representations in "vector space". When generating new content, the AI isn't recreating copyrighted works, but producing new expressions inspired by the concepts it's learned.
This is fundamentally different from copying a book or song. It's more like the long-standing artistic tradition of being influenced by others' work. The law has always recognized that ideas themselves can't be owned - only particular expressions of them.
Moreover, there's precedent for this kind of use being considered "transformative" and thus fair use. The Google Books project, which scanned millions of books to create a searchable index, was ruled legal despite protests from authors and publishers. AI training is arguably even more transformative.
While it's understandable that creators feel uneasy about this new technology, labeling it "theft" is both legally and technically inaccurate. We may need new ways to support and compensate creators in the AI age, but that doesn't make the current use of copyrighted works for AI training illegal or unethical.
For those interested, this argument is nicely laid out by Damien Riehl in FLOSS Weekly episode 744. https://twit.tv/shows/floss-weekly/episodes/744
They probably wouldn't be such a laughing stock if they were successful.
Its a good point but you can always have even lesa market share.
Don't tell me Linux mint would still be Linux mint without the a desktop environment like Cinnamon. An os is the collection of all the software not just the low level code.
Work on useful alternatives to big corpo crapware = lick the boot?
Mkay...
"It happened once, therefore it follows that it will happen again" is confirmation bias
You're right but realistically it will fail. The voices speaking against it are few and largely marginalised, with no money or power. There will probably be regulations but it will not go away.
The potential for damage is much higher
Doubt it. Maybe Microsoft can fuck it up somehow but the tech is here to stay and will do massive good.
Whenever AI is mentioned lots of people in the Linux space immediately react negatively. Creators like TheLinuxExperiment on YouTube always feel the need to add a disclaimer that "some people think AI is problematic" or something along those lines if an AI topic is discussed. I get that AI has many problems but at the same time the potential it has is immense, especially as an assistant on personal computers (just look at what "Apple Intelligence" seems to be capable of.) Gnome and other desktops need to start working on integrating FOSS AI models so that we don't become obsolete. Using an AI-less desktop may be akin to hand copying books after the printing press revolution. If you think of specific problems it is better to point them out and try think of solutions, not reject the technology as a whole.
TLDR: A lot of ludite sentiments around AI in Linux community.
You can test it in Brave Nightly 1.59.
view more: next โบ
Thanks Mr a comment board is my personal substack! ๐