This is fucked up, but also it’s fucked up that there is a single public policy ducked director for Israel AND the Jewish diaspora.

We have seen authoritarian communism that regressed into autocratic nationalist imperialist communism. We have also seen authoritarian communism that has shifted into state capitalism. Just like there are many variations of capitalism that we have and have not seen, there are likewise many of socialism and even communism that we have and have not seen.

Do you understand that even just in the category of communism, there is an enormous gamut of different approaches, of which you only seem to understand a very specific one? You understand that the bolshevicks, even under Lenin, murdered the “competing” communist groups, effectively regressing right back to authoritarianism and what would inevitably degrade into Stalinist autocracy? And so that even the, mischaracterizing, claim that “communism” went bad is basically nonsensical?

I imagine not, though I haven’t looked into it.

God, why is the games industry so fucking illiterate when it comes to IP law. File a trademark opposition? They’re suing! File a patent application without issued claims or even substantive examination? They’ve patented it! These aren’t crazy fucking complicated concepts, but the journalism for games industries like actively stunts the understanding of these things by the market.

It probably uses a GPT of some sort at this point, tbh. There is no reason whatsoever using Google’s ML translation or ChatGPT’s ML translation should make any bit of difference to people who are actually upset over this if they have given any thought whatsoever to their concerns.

There are many open sourced locally executable free generative models available.

You are agreeing with the post you responded to. This ruling is only about training a model on legally obtained training data. It does not say it is ok to pirate works–if you pirate a work, no matter what you do with the infringing copy you’ve made, you’ve committed copyright infringement. It does not talk about model outputs, which is a very nuanced issue and likely to fall along similar analyses as music copyright imo. It only talks about whether training a model is intrinsically an infringement of copyright. And it isn’t because anything else is insane and be functionally impossible to differentiate from learning a writing technique by reading a book you bought from an author. Even a model that has overfit training data, it is in no way recognizable to any particular training datum. It’s hyperdimensioned matrix of numbers defining relationships between features and relationships between relationships.