And that would be completely legal, just like any random guy on deviantart can draw something in the style of e.g. Picasso without getting into trouble (unless of course they claim it was painted by picasso, but that should be obvious).
train one with all the Nintendo leaks
This is fine
generate some Zelda art and a new Mario title
This is copyright infringement.
The ruling in japan (and as I predict also in other countries) is that the act of training a model (which is just a statistical estimator) is not copyrightable, so cannot be copyright infringement. This is already standard practice for everything else: You cannot copyright a mathematical function, regardless of how much data you use to fit to it (that is sensible: CERN has fit physics models to petabytes worth of data, that doesn’t mean they hold a copyright on laws of nature, they just hold the copyright on the data itself). However, if you generate something that is copyrighted, that item is still copyrighted: It doesn’t matter whether you used an AI image generator, photoshop, or a tattoo gun.
First, I don’t think that’s the right comparison. You need to compare them to taxis.
It’s not just that, you generally have a significant distribution shift when comparing the self-drivers/driving assistants to normal humans. This is because people only use self-driving in situations where it has a chance of working, which is especially true with stuff like tesla’s self-driving where ultimately people are not even going to start the autopilot when it gets tricky (nevermind intervening dynamically: they won’t start it in the first place!)
For instance, one of the most common confounding factors is the ratio of highway driving vs non-highway driving: Highways are inherently less accident prone since you don’t have to deal with intersections, oncoming traffic, people merging in from every random house, or children chasing a ball into the street. Self-drivers tend to report a lot more highway traffic than ordinary drivers, due to how the availability of technology dictates where you end up measuring. You can correct for that by e.g. explicitly computing the likelihood p(accident|highway) and use a common p(highway) derived from the entire population of car traffic.
Not necessarily: there have been recent works that indicate that filtering effects of fine tuned LLMs greatly improves the data efficiency (e.g phi-1). Further, if you have e.g. human selection on top of LLM generated content you can get great results as the LLM generation can be used as a soft curriculum, with the human selection biasing towards higher quality.
Basically the stuff they need to detect whether ads are actually shown needs information of the device state that are generally not available according to Article 5(3) ePR.
You cannot run Signal without “Signal - the company” existing. All of their systems are designed to be attached to one specific backend, namely the signal-run backend, meaning without re-engineering the existing infrastructure you cannot simply swap over.
As @kpw already mentioned, “Signal - the company” dying would involve a functional reset of everything: No contacts, no servers, no infrastructure. COULD you fork the thing and build you own system? Sure, but it would be functionally unusable since no one else would be using it, since everything relies on specifically the signal servers to function. A post-signal system could re-use some of their code (if it runs outside signal corp - “works on my machine” could be present in this project as well), but would need to rebuild the actual network.
This is in contrast to something like the matrix protocol: If a specific matrix instance goes kaput, you still have the overall network working. This means that even if an instance implodes, you would have an easy migration path since the matrix network itself persists.
Essentially the same argument: Due to the fact the HBO show was syndicated throughout the united states, he can file in the federal courts in e.g. Texas (usually the argument is something like “They damaged business relations/contracts in XYZ state, therefore we file in XYZ state”).
I answered a little more in detail in a different comment (https://fedia.io/m/[email protected]/t/411563/-/comment/2556033) but to address the last point: They did file in federal court (specifically the federal district court in north texas).
The issue with the internet is that it did take place in texas as well: The news article was available in texas, so the news corp can be sued there. Basically the argument is: “Media Matters harmed X’s brand in texas using misleading information” (you can read their arguments for filing in texas under the “Jurisdiction and Venue” section of their filing).
Also remember that this is currently X’s wish list: Media Matters can file for a change in venue.
Edit: Quick update.
Looking at their filing, the case will probably fail under a motion for summary judgment: They basically agree with Media Matters that they did show ads under extremist’s posts. They simply argue that you need to push the twitter algorithm to its limits by doomscrolling for a long time until the algorithm fails. However, this doesn’t make any of the facts provided by Media Matters (https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musk-endorses-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory-x-has-been-placing-ads-apple-bravo-ibm-oracle) wrong.
Surely a company should be governed by the laws of the state in which they are based
This is not true and wouldn’t make why sense: let’s say you are a delivery company and one of your drivers runs over a dog in Texas. The lawsuit can be filed in Texas, regardless of whether your company is in Texas, California, or even outside the united states. The place you are incorporated in doesn’t change the damages or laws you violated when running over the dog. Of course you can also move the venue to the state the company is based in.
You cannot (generally) move it to another state, since that state doesn’t even have jurisdiction over any part of the incident.
The internet is just special in the sense that really something that happened on the internet happened everywhere on earth at the same time, meaning any venue is a place where potential damages were accrued.
Here is the more burning question: What is worse? Case “It was not made to design standards”: Then boing might have a problem in their manufacturing processes, which is going to have ramifications on the entire fleet. This would be bad, but fixable.
Case “It was made to design standards”: In that case you only have a problem with this one type of jet, but you have a problem in your fundamental design, which might ground the entire fleet (again).