riskable

This wasn't a moratorium on AI data centers. It was a moratorium on all data centers.

Do you ever use a search engine? How about YouTube, Netflix, or any other online services? I hate to be the one to break this to you but...

You're a big user of data centers.

I actually know where the voice data goes! Amazon servers... that were specifically sequestered for HIPAA stuff (LOL).

But no: It actually can't be repackaged and sold to a 3rd party. Not without your consent, anyway. That would be a violation of HIPAA.

What they can do is anonymize the data and aggregate it that way. But the HIPAA rules say that it can't be possible to tie it back to individuals. This causes problems with people who have super rare illnesses but that's a different issue altogether.

Having said that, there are companies that have be caught red handed doing exactly what you describe. They were fined and some don't exist anymore because the fines were either too much or hospitals and doctors offices stopped using them due to lack of trust.

Not to be confused with people who identify as grammar. There/they're/their

~~communist~~ authoritarian disaster

FTFY.

"Who put Natural Red #4 in my pepper grinder?"

Inappropriate for sure, but impactful?

I mean, was he cheating on his wife or something? Is he known for episodes like this that weren't caught on camera?

If it's just a one-time thing... It's funny but really, who cares? I mean, this is really on-brand for a Republican to pull shit like this but there's definitely situations where I'd rather leave a public building wearing nothing but underwear rather than keep those pants on.

Example: If the toilet overflowed with sewer shit while I had them down. I'd leave the pants, socks, and shoes behind!

Especially if I was drunk off my ass!

(I don't actually drink... Just sayin 😁)

but filming a politician when you ask them loaded opinion questions and then posting it to social media to dunk on them is not.

Why? That sounds like normal free speech. It's annoying and intrusive for sure but shouldn't be illegal.

You can't pre-empt speech like that. If you do, you're just enabling censorship and corruption.

Not to mention that in a post-apocalyptic scenario, furniture would be plentiful while books would succumb to the elements pretty fast (once the air conditioning turns off).

Also, the amount of energy required to make usable furniture is a fraction of the amount of making paper. Paper can be made from the byproduct of furniture-making but it still requires pressing, drying, and suitable inks require (minor) chemical processing. You can use soot and honey (aka lampblack ink) but it's way more involved than drilling some holes in some wood and then hammering legs into said holes (the simplest form of "furniture").

My brother in law is a doctor and he relies on note dictation. It's actually a really important thing in modern medical care. Rather than moving over to a computer (or using the shitty iPad/tablet on-screen keyboard), he can speak the notes into a voice recognition tool that was made for medical transcription/notes.

This is a really good use of AI. It's not a bad thing, damnit!

Also, for reference, training this kind of AI doesn't require enormous data centers worth of computers. It's 2017 AI technology that's been recently upgraded with 2022-ish tech. It still sends the audio to a private company's servers, but they have agreements that legally bind the provider to protect the privacy of the patient (they can be sued for HIPAA violations if they fail to protect the data... If they even retain any which I doubt).

Corrupt law enforcement and politicians everywhere applaud your stance. As do factory farm owners, oil company executives, and the rich and powerful in general.

There should be no expectation of privacy in public places. Harassment is a separate but related issue, though.

I'm firmly in the camp of one-party consent laws. It's often the only way to hold people accountable for their actions. The rich and powerful shouldn't be able to sue someone for being recorded. Or worse, have the government act as their lap dogs with arrests.

"IP theft" is a rhetorical term invented by the MPAA/RIAA in the 90s. It's not a real crime. It's just propaganda.

There's no law on the books that even remotely resembles "IP theft". Here's what we've got:

• Copyright law. Which can be violated. Normally, when you violate copyright that's a civil offense. Not a criminal one. Criminal prosecution of copyright violation is pretty rare, though there's been a recent uptick with lawsuits against illegal IPTV sites and Anna's Archive.
• Trademark law. This is all about dealing with counterfeits and fraud (e.g. misrepresenting a trademarked brand).
• Patent law. Pretty self explanatory, except software patents shouldn't exist. Every software patent that's ever been granted is 100% bullshit and should never have happened.
• Trade secrets. Not really relevant to this discussion but there's laws about it that are really, really hard to litigate (again, civil law). You could copy the secret recipe for Coke but that wouldn't be "theft". It's... Complicated.
• Some obscure stuff like integrated circuit topography and in Europe there's laws around databases.

Not a single one of these laws deals with "theft". The entire concept of theft is orthogonal to intellectual property.

Until the MPAA/RIAA started their marketing campaigns in the 90s, "IP theft" as a concept didn't exist. It wasn't a thing. It still isn't a thing. It's propaganda/marketing BS.

Are you forgetting the IP theft

I'm going to come out and say it: IP theft isn't a thing. IP is not something that can be stolen. It can have its license violated or it can be copied against the wishes of its owner. What it absolutely cannot be is "stolen".

A car can be stolen. A phone can be stolen. A book or a CD or a DVD can be stolen. The concepts or ideas or literal content of what amounts to Intellectual Property cannot be stolen. It can only be copied.

If anything has been stolen it's the commons that is the public domain. It was taken away for about four generations. Long enough that no one remembers the IP that's only just now becoming public domain. It's a loss far greater than anything related to AI.

I'll also say this: Even if an AI were trained on nothing but public domain works (like most image generating AI a la ImageNET) people would still be spouting bullshit like, "it's stealing IP!"