Post by account_disabled on Feb 27, 2024 19:31:01 GMT 10
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said the bipartisan border deal that was scrapped in the Senate on Wednesday was deliberately hidden from the public eye to minimize any criticism of it. “From the beginning I thought it was a ruse,” Paul said during an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Wednesday night. «It was never really about the border. "It was a symbol, it was a bone that they were going to throw at the conservatives." "But they were always afraid that if conservatives found out that it was a ruse, that this wasn't real border reform, if people like Laura Ingraham or [Sean] Hannity found out about this, that you would discuss the bill... and it would be destroyed. » “So the game from the beginning was to keep this a secret. [Republicans]but also in the secret of anyone who could see and criticize it,” Paul added. News Week reached out to Paul's representatives via email Wednesday for comment.
Imagine the state of generative AI a decade from now: the number of users, the number of products it will be integrated into. And by then, perhaps the models will be much more transformative, making past violations moot in the eyes of the courts. If that happens, then the next step would likely be to get nations to grant copyright protections Paraguay WhatsApp Number to content created by generative AI. Currently, the United States and most other countries do not. Under current laws, transparency around the use of generative AI is paramount, because its use loses copyright protection at a certain point. Related article: Is your brand much more trusted than ChatGPT? AI Copyright Infringement: The Value of Human Effort The question of whether AI-generated works should be protected in the same way as human-generated works returns to the central question at hand: Are tasks performed by humans and tasks performed by machines the same? If generative AI works were seen as equal to human works in the eyes of the law, it would open the door to large-scale copyright trolls.
Who would produce and publish images, stories, songs, videos and other generated content by AI and then sue artists, publishers, studios and others for copyright infringement after having spent weeks, months or even years working on a piece. A different plane Once again, the truth of the matter seems clear: tasks performed by humans are on a different plane than tasks performed by machines, whether they be generative AI or robots or whatever. They're just fundamentally different, but much of the rhetoric around generative AI seeks to put humans and machines on the same level. only machines Mainly, the argument is that these machines act and perform tasks as a human would, so machines should be treated like people. That's the core of the argument some people are making regarding the New York Times' lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft. But mimicry is not humanity. Even if we give them people's names like Alexa, Claude and Jasper, they are still just machines, devoid of emotions, dreams and families.
Imagine the state of generative AI a decade from now: the number of users, the number of products it will be integrated into. And by then, perhaps the models will be much more transformative, making past violations moot in the eyes of the courts. If that happens, then the next step would likely be to get nations to grant copyright protections Paraguay WhatsApp Number to content created by generative AI. Currently, the United States and most other countries do not. Under current laws, transparency around the use of generative AI is paramount, because its use loses copyright protection at a certain point. Related article: Is your brand much more trusted than ChatGPT? AI Copyright Infringement: The Value of Human Effort The question of whether AI-generated works should be protected in the same way as human-generated works returns to the central question at hand: Are tasks performed by humans and tasks performed by machines the same? If generative AI works were seen as equal to human works in the eyes of the law, it would open the door to large-scale copyright trolls.
Who would produce and publish images, stories, songs, videos and other generated content by AI and then sue artists, publishers, studios and others for copyright infringement after having spent weeks, months or even years working on a piece. A different plane Once again, the truth of the matter seems clear: tasks performed by humans are on a different plane than tasks performed by machines, whether they be generative AI or robots or whatever. They're just fundamentally different, but much of the rhetoric around generative AI seeks to put humans and machines on the same level. only machines Mainly, the argument is that these machines act and perform tasks as a human would, so machines should be treated like people. That's the core of the argument some people are making regarding the New York Times' lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft. But mimicry is not humanity. Even if we give them people's names like Alexa, Claude and Jasper, they are still just machines, devoid of emotions, dreams and families.