We already have a great slogan. E pluribus unum. The idea that people from different places, backgrounds, and walks of life all come together for one cause, the betterment of all, that’s something to rally behind. The US hasn’t ever stood for that, but it’s something to strive for at least. What they’re offering has been rejected by the world time and time again and will continue to be. What they’re peddling is shameful and I’m disgusted that anyone is falling for this.
The link says it was over a fort having been seized. Though I’m not pro war, that seems like a pretty standard reason to go to war. It says it was not actually over a bucket.
I don’t think training on all public information is super ethical regardless, but to the extent that others may support it, I understand that SO may be seen as fair game. To my knowledge though, all the big AIs I’m aware of have been trained on GitHub regardless of any individual projects license.
It’s not about proving individual code theft, it’s about recognizing the model itself is built from theft. Just because an AI image output might not resemble any preexisting piece of art doesn’t mean it isn’t based on theft. Can I ask what you used that was trained on just a projects documentation? Considering the amount of data usually needed for coherent output, I would be surprised if it did not need some additional data.
If you acknowledge the problem with theft from artists, do you not acknowledge there’s a problem with theft from coders? Code intended to be fully open source with licenses requiring derivatives to be open source is now being served up for closed source uses at the press of a button with no acknowledgement.
For what it’s worth, I think AI would be much better in a post scarcity moneyless society, but so long as people need to be paid for their work I find it hard to use ethically. The time it might take individuals to do the things offloaded to AI might mean a company would need to hire an additional person if they were not using AI. If AI were not trained unethically then I’d view it as a productivity tool and so be it, but because it has stolen for its training data it’s hard for me to view it as a neutral tool.
Not everyone is eligible for subsidies. My understanding is that they are basically federal assistance for low income families. Single people making more than 62,600 (which is 4 times the poverty level) for example will not be eligible for any assistance and their premiums have potentially risen over 25% just this year. That’s a lot of money, even for someone not on the poverty line.
I wonder if open enrollment extension will allow people to change plans. If someone could only afford a catastrophic plan without aid, will they be able to change to a better plan with aid? I have not seen articles mention open enrollment extension, but I’m glad to hear it’s being discussed. Obviously that doesn’t help the people who need healthcare today, but it at least is something.
I hate that articles don’t seem to mention that:
So healthcare is more expensive for everyone now and the people who were eligible for these subsidies may never see them because they don’t have healthcare anymore. This is disgraceful.
Also, AI continues to get more indistinguishable from actual images. If someone shares revenge porn but acts like it’s AI, the victim should not have to prove one way or the other. Currently, I think real or AI should be treated the same, but it’s possible I’m overlooking some unintended consequences of that.