My entire premise hinges on the fact that these papers agree with me.

I work with AI every day at my job. My buddy is a literal AI researcher and we hobby-build together too.

I’m not concerned with what you think is “objective truth” when you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Yes this is an argument in my favor, you just don’t understand AI/LLMs enough to know why.

That’s certainly an opinion you have

the people stealing data

No one is doing this

Output doesn’t matter since it’s pretty well settled it’s not derivative work

Cool, discussion over.

I agree. For instance, it should be secured in law that you can train AI on anything, to avoid frivolous discussions like this.

Output is what should be moderated by law.

If it’s not a violation of copyright then this is a non-issue. You don’t need permission to read books.

at their expense

How?

Why do you have free reign to do the same?

AIs don’t learn as a human would, and comparisons can’t be made between the learning processes.

I think you’re going to have a hard time proving a financial distinction between them

There’s a third solution you’re overlooking.

3: OpenAI (or other) wins a judgment that AI content is not inherently a violation of copyright regardless of materials it is trained upon.

Cool. I’m down with that.

No minimum parking, no height limit, no maximum FAR, no maximum unit count.

yeah get rid of these next and you’re set.

It’s gonna take a lot of work, man. The regulatory capture here is extreme.

Everyone wants to point to capitalism for this, but this is what happens when you kneecap any economic system. That’s why it’s all over the world.

This is literally my ideal world.

You personally have sex maybe 20 times with various peers before you reach your 18th birthday.

But surely this is already the norm, yeah? Who is sexually active and has sex less than 20 times? Did you mean 20 partners?

They’re not replicating OF, their advertising their OF, and there’s nothing about twitch or these streams that explicitly advertises to children.

When you sell something to someone, you’re not exploiting them. You’ve got some terms mixed up here.

You could make similar arguments about gambling being a moral panic and they shouldn’t ban that on the site.

I mean yeah, banning gambling is weird as fuck and just creates black markets

For further clarity on why this was a funny mixup, to anyone who sees this, Plex is also a thing, but it is a very different thing, just with a very similar name.

https://www.plex.tv/

I don’t understand how any of this is a problem. Just, like, parent your fuckin kids.

This is one step from “take the books out of libraries” level of paternalism

This is specifically about Australia, but essentially all 3 parts of this piece (and related linked essays) sum up how to solve the housing crisis worldwide.

https://theemergentcity.substack.com/p/how-to-solve-housing-unaffordability

Boils down to:

1: change zoning laws to allow more multifamily construction

2: remove incentives for homeownership and generally disincentivize single family homes

3: build for density in ways that reinforce and support density

If you want more info, basically every mainstream economist in the world agrees this is the solution, and that this is a manufactured problem. It’s a result of regulatory capture by homeowners, essentially. There are many, many papers about it.

Here’s an easily-digestible article

https://www.businessinsider.com/economist-how-to-fix-america-housing-crisis-rural-cities-2022-10

And a well-cited study in an economic journal:

https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2022/12/30/the-economics-of-the-housing-shortage/

All these sources agree, because this is the solution. Realistically, the only bad solutions are subsidizing more demand via things like rent control - these will only make our problems worse, kind of like how adding more lanes to a highway doesn’t fix traffic.

deleted by creator