Hard to believe anyone is still buying them at all. Surely the company is totally irredeemable in the eyes of the vast majority of their customer base.
Yes, sorry, the internet unfortunately works this way and even though we are trying everything we know to dampen this stuff on Hacker News in favor of more thoughtful conversation, it seems we can only tweak the margins somewhat.
If you invested your own money in AI do not worry about Gary Marcus, he will have little impact on when the bubble bursts. I for one welcome the skeptics because the amount of hype needs to come down a bit as it is currently at astronomical levels.
We need better justice system that enforces the laws we have in the books that would help compensate right owners when big companies in emails pirate terabytes of data.
I really don't think that Meta did this because the alternative would have been too onerous; they are a huge org, they could work through whatever loopholes required. They did it because it would have cost money and there will be no penalty for not paying.
I must have failed to clearly express myself - I don't think Meta should be doing what they are doing, I hope they do end up being punished. But the only way that Meta is going to change its behaviour is by being held accountable in a way that's much more difficult and costly than if they'd simply followed the law in the first place.
Ah, I'm not sure exactly what I believe here, but this kind of torrenting is obviously illegal-- I'm personally split on how I feel about it morally, because some of these people really are trying to preserve knowledge, and I think that's commendable, at the same time, commercial piracy is something which really does screw over authors with it being some kind of theft-of-service type thing where people exploit other people's work-- and if they felt that the work had no value they could have written another text themselves.
I only really wanted to convey that I believed that it probably isn't obviously easy for Meta to get away with anything in this, even if the US government decides to be lenient for the sake of a high market-cap US company simply because other countries are a viable place to sue as well.
I think I misinterpreted your comment as that you thought that Meta thought that costs would be low because they imagined a US court system that simply ignored the illegality because it's they who committed it, when nothing like that is actually implied in your comment.
A guy from my town was on the Traitors and did attempt to take advantage of the loophole you mentioned and they almost entirely edited him out of the series.
My spouse and I are avid consumers of the series and we have been hypothesizing on and off why 1-2 game participants each season get almost no screen time whatsoever. Originally we thought it might simply be that the people in question make boring television. This is another possibility we had not even entertained - that the producers were punishing people for meta-gaming.
Based on my knowledge of the show and commentary around its filming, it does seem genuinely mostly unscripted - which means that producers are probably reaching for other mechanisms to control dialogue and contestant behavior and probably threatening screen time for breaking the 4th wall is an effective one.
This matches what we've observed at the company I work at.
The chimpanzees seemed like a big cost saving at first but when you factor in the wages of the human supervisors, it's hardly worth the legal issues it causes.
