I don’t understand the bottled water thing either but I think the rise of things like delivery services and subscriptions can be linked to increasing workloads and decreasing community assistance.
If every member of your household is also working a full time job your time becomes significantly more valuable.
This isn’t a new thing but I hate anytime it asks me a question. I’ll be driving through an accident scene trying to work out where the cop directing traffic wants me to go and if I’ll need to go a different way because the turn I was gonna make is blocked off and at that precise moment google maps decides it’s a great idea to cover the bottom half of the screen with a “is tHeRe sTiLl An aCcIdEnT hErE?”
If it’s illegal to use your phone while driving it should be illegal for navigation apps to suddenly require interaction in the middle of navigating.
So does B make this basically a non-starter? Seems like you’re never going to get someone to cooperate with this (not that I blame them).
I know someone who used to be a genius and apparently it was uncommon but not unheard of for someone to puncture a battery resulting in a violent fire that had to be put out by dumping a fuckload of sand onto it.
So this isn’t that far off from working at a Genius Bar normally.
I bet you they can actually
Here are games I like that are just mobile ports without ads or micro transactions:
Slay the spire
Monster train
Mindustry
Mini metro
Honorable mention to Vampire Survivors which is mostly a simple port, but it does incentivize you to watch ads for extra lives.
Growing up my mom didn’t understand this and always insisted that the sink plungers were the only kind that worked (she also called them toilet plungers) and that toilet plungers (the fancy kind) were some kind of trick. Took until I was in college that I learned you shouldn’t have to break a sweat unclogging your toilet.
That’s another good example. The Trump/Putin kissing mural is a great example of something that ends up being homophobic rather than partisan.
So you think it should be illegal?
If you used it to slander your neighbor, it would not be legal.
You’re entirely ignoring my point, I’m not trying to pass the video off as real therefore it’s not slander.
You keep referring to this as revenge porn which to me is a case where someone spreads nudes around as a way to punish their current or former partner. You could use AI to generate material to use as revenge porn, but I bet most AI nudes are not that.
Think about a political comic showing a pro-corporate politician performing a sex act with Jeff bezos. Clearly that would be protected speech. If you generate the same image with generative AI though then suddenly it’s illegal even if you clearly label it as being a parody. That’s the concern. Moreover, the slander/libel angle doesn’t make sense if you include a warning that the image is generated, as you are not making a false statement.
To sum up why I think this bill is kinda weird and likely to be ineffective, it’s perfectly legal for me to generate and distribute a fake ai video of my neighbor shooting a puppy as long as I don’t present it as a real video. If I generate the same video but my neighbor’s dick is hanging out, straight to jail. It’s not consistent.
That’s arguably a better rule than the more traditional flat-fee penalties, as it curbs the impulse to treat violations as cost-of-business. A firm that makes $1B/year isn’t going to blink at a handful of $1000 judgements.
No argument there but it reinforces my point that this law is written for Taylor swift and not a random high schooler.
You’d be liable for producing an animated short staring “Definitely Not Mickey Mouse” under the same reasoning.
Except that there are fair use exceptions specifically to prevent copyright law from running afoul of the first amendment. You can see the parody exception used in many episodes of south park for example and even specifically used to depict Mickey Mouse. Either this bill allows for those types of uses in which case it’s toothless anyway or it’s much more restrictive to speech than existing copyright law.
Not convinced on this one
It seems like the bill is being pitched as protecting women who have fake nudes passed around their school but the text of the bill seems more aimed at the Taylor swift case.
1 The bill only applies where there is an “intent to distribute”
2 The bill talks about damages being calculated based on the profit of the defendant
The bill also states that you can’t label the image as AI generated or rely on the context of publication to avoid running afoul of this law. That seems at odds with the 1st amendment.
I genuinely feel like the climate is just a no win situation from a political perspective. Any real solution has pretty serious tradeoffs so either you take small low impact steps which are panned as being too little too late, or you take bold steps that hurt some significant group economically.
I have a really distinct memory of finding a bunch of these in a friend’s house when I was a kid and every one was empty. After watching the TC video I think it’s more likely I just wasn’t pressing hard enough and had no way to know that. Anyway, I can see why they stopped making them.