jackvalentine

Bought a BYD, cross shopped it with some Mazdas and Toyotas. For less money we got more fruit, a full BEV and the Japanese brands materials were equivalent or worse.

Toyota interiors in particular are hard plastic monstrosities.

The article is evidence there is confusion in the marketplace - people are contacting the cartoonists about the fraudulent works.

Now the argument can be where does the infringement land - does it land with the person who generates the cartoon, fails to remove the signature and uploads it to instagram? Maybe. But I don't think we should be giving these AI companies yet another get out of jail "oops you made a machine that does a bad thing" card.

I also firmly believe there are contexts in which merely producing the trademark and attaching it to something is enough to be infringement but I'm not going to do the legal legwork to get there to your satisfaction, sorry.

Seems to me like producing an artist's stylised signature would be a trademark infringement.

OpenAI give lip service to the idea of not producing others' intellectual property - go ask it to explicitly make a picture of the genie from Aladdin.

“Which military service is best for me” and “I’m a veteran how do I get care?” being on the same carousel is putting the truth nicely together.

Not exactly sure what this is.

But I'm so excited to play Worms with my kids when they're old enough. My sister and I _endlessly_ played the same level in a worms 2 demo almost 30 years ago.

Famously these controls basically don’t work.

> Democratising access to legal knowledge / help / assistance is a good thing, regardless of the effect it has on public services.

When the 'democratised access' means they're quoting laws from other countries, sometimes multiple other countries mashed together I don't think anyone is getting value out of it.

We're not getting informed engagement from the public and the person making demands isn't getting any kind of valued legal assistance.

We have always, and continue to have, thoughtful engagement from the public in the form of questions about our operations. This new thing is not that. It's wild.

I take your point about there being an opportunity to be more proactively transparent or clear with people and I push for that a lot... but the sad fact is this new class of AI fuelled fervour really is just something else. It takes away our limited resources to do good work just to respond to it.

> Is it any different to how it was previously? Before the age of AI, companies write all sorts of bullshit stuff into ToS or EULA which was neither enforceable or legal yet they routinely got away with it because Joe Schmoe had no ability to assess their arguments or fight back.

Well yes, because we don't do that. You might be shocked to hear we don't even have a ToS or EULA and the relevant legislation acts as that for our purposes.

Even the “pre-case” legal stuff is out of control. In my Australian organisation we’ve noticed a deluge of what I can only call “privacy demands” that talk the talk… but have the jurisdiction or subject legislation wrong.

But AI told them they could demand these things (even if it would be illegal for us to comply! Think KYC stuff.) and they don’t have the skill to criticise the AI or know when to stop.

I’ve never even thought about this - what does the EU get as a country that it can’t get with its current structure?

I don't think it's necessary to have wants or plans in place when you point out this kind of thing.

You should also be careful about taking imagined positions to the extreme ..."Does that we mean we should have also canceled the internet?"