If the AI “reads” the work first, then it would have needed to pay for it
That’s not actually true. Copyright applies to distribution, not consumption. You violate no law when I create an unauthorized copy of a work, and you read that copy. Copyright law prohibits you from distributing further copies, but it does not prohibit you from possessing the copy I provided you, nor are you prohibited from speaking about the copy you have acquired.
Unless the AI is regurgitating substantial parts of the original work, it’s output is a “transformative derivation”, which is not subject to the protections of the original copyright. The AI is doing what English teachers ask of every school-age child: create a book report.
The issue is that, for a person to ‘derive’ comedy from Sarah Silverman the ‘analogue’ way, you have to get her works legally,
That is not actually true.
I would violate copyright by making an unauthorized copy and providing it to you, but you do not violate copyright for simply viewing that unauthorized copy. Sarah can come after me for creating the cop[y|ies], but she can’t come after the people to whom I send them, even if they admit to having willingly viewed a copy they knew to be unauthorized.
Copyright applies to distribution, not consumption.
The last four songs I’ve listened to on YouTube are three pirate shanties and “We Know The Way” from the Moana soundtrack. I’m not answering this question either. :)
Doordash driver: The federal government values mileage at $0.63/mile for tax purposes. They would value the vehicle expenses of a 6-mile delivery at $3.78.
Minimum wage in my state is $10.10 per hour. A 6-mile delivery takes 20 minutes, or $3.03. Anything less than $6.81 for this delivery, and the driver is earning less than minimum wage.
DD typically pays the driver $2.
A tip less than $4.81 means you expect the driver to earn less than minimum wage.
There's another problem: Doordash's primary rating system for it's drivers is "acceptance rate". The higher your acceptance rate, the higher you are prioritized for offers. The lowest tier of drivers has to wait for everyone in the area above him to be unavailable or to reject an order before he gets to work.
When a customer makes a low-tip or no-tip order, they expect a driver to pay for the privilege of delivering the order, and they are willing to ding the acceptance rating of every single driver in the area who refuses to work at a loss.
It's the way our tax system works. Employers have to pay taxes on payroll; they don't pay taxes on tips. By having customers pay servers directly, they reduce their tax burden.
Believe me, we don't like it either, but we are familiar with it, so there is little incentive to change.
Tipped employees are primarily paid directly by the people they serve. If you are not tipping a tipped server, you are declaring their work is worth less than minimum wage.
It is lawful to do that, but it is a real dick move.
You don’t even recognize the danger you are complicit in creating.
Niemöller recognized it, when he said:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Thomas Paine recognized it when he said:
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
The problem with participating in a mob that attacks Nazis is that the mob isn’t done when the Nazis are all dead. The mob is still around, still looking for enemies to oppress.
The idea that it is socially acceptable to oppress an undesirable group is the exact principle that allowed the German people to promote the mob rule of the Nazi party. By the time they realized what they had created, they were forced to support it, even if they were horrified by what they were doing. Anyone questioning the continued need for their mob found themselves an enemy of it, and thus targeted by it.
That’s the problem with fascism. It is an extremely attractive idea. Fascism arises when we as a society determine we have the right to suppress anything we don’t like, without bothering to consider that nobody is universally liked. When fascism runs out of enemies, it manufactures new ones out of its least liked supporters. The mob you create today is the same mob that will be lynching you tomorrow.
The solution that our grandparents and great-grandparents came up with reiterates Niemöller and Paine. They developed a philosophical principle best summarized as:
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
When Nazis are talking, the appropriate response is to talk back, not prohibit them from talking. When we ignore them, censor them, or impose silence on them, they win.
The critical flaw in Popper’s paradox is the assumption that society can accurately recognize and agree on the group of people who deserve to be shunned and silenced. Anyone subscribing to Popper’s paradox can claim it supports their own position against the other. That’s why it is a paradox.
Popper’s paradox suggests that the only solution to fascism is another form of fascism. He suggests the only way to deal with an authoritarian regime is with another authoritarian regime. When both sides subscribe to Popper, they ultimately attack each other, to the death.
The Free Speech absolutist position does not have this problem. When both sides subscribe to free speech, they defend eachother, to the death.
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend you while you say it, even as I yell at the top of my lungs that you are wrong and that nobody should be listening to you.
Karl Popper presented the paradox not to justify intolerance of the intolerant, but to show how reasonable, rational people were able to justify the atrocities committed in their name. Like all paradoxes, when we find that Popper’s model is paradoxical, we must recognize that absurdity. We must not adopt it, but reject the model that created it, and find a new method that doesn’t conclude in paradox. Free speech absolutism is one such approach.
You simultaneously reject it and believe he wrote it to prove how unsustainable it is?
I reject the common interpretation of it, which is that “reverse fascism” is an acceptable response to “fascism”.
I give Popper the benefit of doubt by assuming that when he called it a paradox, he was presenting a proof-by-contradiction. In normal circumstances, a model arriving at paradoxical conclusions is proof of the model’s failure and a call for rejecting that model. If I assume Popper was not an idiot, I have to conclude that his paradox was not intended to support one form of intolerance over another, but was instead presented to demonstrate the subjective nature of fascism.
No ideas need to be shared where people don’t want to hear them. You are free to speak and I am free to not listen.
I think there is some confusion. Within the context of the paradox, those two sentences are mutually exclusive. The first one supports the paradox, while the second rejects it.
“No ideas need to be shared where people don’t want to listen” is a call for censorship; for silencing offensive voices. For creating a space where nothing offensive will be said, on the basis that “nobody” wants to hear it. In suggesting that offensive ideas should not be shared, you are supporting Popper’s paradox.
In the context of the paradox “You are free to speak…” Is a call for tolerating the intolerant. When you support my freedom to speak words you deem offensive, you are joining me in rejecting Popper’s paradox.
That makes you intolerant. Your model has called for your own oppression.
I don’t think you’re missing my point. I think you’re being deliberately obtuse.
The German People were following the paradox in 1935 when they denounced people who were interfering with their ideals. They were denouncing people who were trying to harm their ideal society. They were intolerant of those people who were pushing an “alternative” world view that wasn’t conducive to the advancement of the public’s goals. They felt these people had no redeeming qualities; that they were dangerous and disruptive to society. That they had nothing of any value to say, and that it was acceptable to suppress them. These dangerous, disruptive elements should be intolerated. They should be suppressed and destroyed, rather than allowed to interfere with the purity of German society.
If you present Popper’s paradox to the German public in 1935, they will agree with its truth. They will use his philosophy to support their eugenics and genocidal programs: it is vitally important for the German people to fight back against the intolerance of these disruptive influences. Indeed, Hitler presented the same concept in Mein Kampf, and called for intolerance against those he deemed intolerant.
There is no objective truth behind the paradox. Popper’s paradox works just as well for justifying your enemy’s actions as it does for your own. For that reason, it must be rejected.
The argument boils down to “it’s impossible to know if the opposing side is truly being intolerant.” You say it is impossible. I say it isn’t.
Close, but not quite. That situation does, indeed, arise, but what I am arguing for is a philosophical model that provides valid results even when applied by my worst enemy.
While we can certainly come up with any number of subjective characteristics distinguishing you from them, there is no objective distinction between your brand of intolerance and theirs. As the subjects of your intolerance, they have just as much a claim to declare you fascist as you have to declare them. The tragedy of Popper’s paradox is that it absolutely requires, but does not give any guidance in determining who is the good guy and who is the baddie. In the form commonly presented, It just tells you it is a moral imperative to oppress your enemies. That’s a big fucking problem when history eventually determines you were on the wrong side of the issue.
The free speech absolutist does not have this problem. He recognizes that he does not agree with his opponent, but he understands he is not empowered to silence his opponent. This is true regardless of who thinks themselves the good guy.
Popper’s paradox calls for fascist reactions to fascism. Popper’s paradox calls for the echo chambers and deepens the divisiveness that underpins so many of our societal problems today.
You continue to ignore historical precedence. Everyone want to think that they would have been Oskar Schindler, but the reality is that if you were a German in 1935, you would have supported the Nazis, just like the overwhelming majority of Germans.
The question isn’t whether minstrel shows or homophobic attitudes are hate speech. The question is whether the people holding those opinions can speak them, or whether they should be censored and oppressed.
Silencing someone for holdong a politically incorrect opinion: hate speech.
Sarah Silverman Sues Maker Of ChatGPT For Copyright Infringement (www.huffpost.com)
Online dating (lemmy.world)
What is the point of having a bot parrot everything that's posted on Reddit?
I noticed there’s a lot of " This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot." Post. And I am wondering why?...
Visiting the US soon - do I really have to tip?
Hey Folks!...
Calling all devs! We need moderation tools that can deal with the growth of Lemmy. (lemmy.world)