jojo100
jojo100 on Hacker News
Yeah, it clearly does. Lot of sweating collars.
Just a quick reminder to any potential felons in finance/crypto/corporate settings. If you decide to rob billions from the public, we'll let you out in about a decade as long as you don't beat someone up in prison. Just make sure you hide your money well!
Sincerely
The American Legal System
What a travesty of American justice. He'll be out in 12-13 years and will jet off to the mansion he bought for his parents in the Bahamas with his customer's money. You just know the smug felon has a huge BC wallet Caroline is hiding for him. He's directly responsible for the 3+ suicides that have happened due to his deception and theft but he'll live in luxury for his silver and golden days.
And people are on here arguing that this sentence is too long. How laughable.
Don't spare too much of a thought for SBF. He won't go to the same prison you will.
This might be the most out of touch comment I've ever read, to the point where it genuinely looks like sarcasm mocking someone who would think like that. Apologies if so.
>I really don't like this--opt-out never works because the scale advantages are backwards. It places the burden in the wrong place. The aggregators should have to get opt-in.
>Look at YouTube. Because of "opt-out", lots of people monetize content that they have no right to and it's up to the original author to have to fight the scale of a zillion uploaders. Only the biggest entities can do that.
>YouTube (and everybody else) should have to assert "You, the uploader, own this content" when they ingest it. Nothing else works.
Thankfully, in a rare turn of fate, capital will be on the side of the laissez-faire instead of the stringent anti-copyright-infringers for once. You do not own the rights to material created by a generative AI.
Content creators and publishers are also the primary ones who are using generative AI. They aren't a united monolith against generative AI.
This is what people on the "this is copyright infringement" side don't understand. Even if it somehow is copyright infringement by the standards of today's law, those laws will inevitably change in the near future. Generative AI is far, far too lucrative and convenient to society for it to be crippled by obsolete copyright infringement laws formed in a time where generative AI was a thing of science fiction novels.
>Where generative AI ingests copyrighted works in order to work and bases its output on it, then it is copyright infringement
This is an absurd standard. Is it copyright infringement when a human "ingests" copyrighted work and bases their output on it? Because that's commonly called inspiration and is how every artist creates their work - through experiencing other works and using that cumulative inspiration to form their own product.
Copyright infringement is already ridiculously restrictive as it is, this proposal not only fundamentally misunderstands how generative AI works but penalises AI for doing what humans do everyday.