FaceDeer

https://i.imgur.com/D47rAqy.jpeg

I occasionally deal with a mouse or two in my house, and I much prefer these kinds of traps. They’re slightly more expensive, but you don’t need many and they’re reusable so that doesn’t really matter much. The advantages are:

• Super easy to set, just pull the jaw open by the little handle and it clicks in place. No need to touch the dead mouse, it plops right out into a garbage can.
• I’ve never had mice successfully steal the bait, the cover forces them to put their heads in exactly the right place for the kill bar to come down on them.
• This also means that I’ve never seen a mouse fail to get instantly and painlessly killed.

The best places to put mousetraps are often dark and hard to see, and the bright red kill bar makes it easy to tell at a glance whether it’s triggered.

And the other mice will clean it up too.

Sure, not disputing that. I’m more annoyed by the double standard regarding his successful decisions.

No, just surprised about how uninformed and knee-jerk those opinions are.

In my experience, it’s likely that some of those downvotes come from reflexive “AI bad! How dare you say AI good!” Reactions, not anything specific to mental health. For a community called “technology” there’s a pretty strong anti-AI bubble going on here.

What I mean is that when Musk-owned companies have successes people are very often quick to accuse him of “just hiring smart people” or “just buying a successful company.” It’s only when those companies have failures that he gets credit for being hands-on in their design decisions.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Elon Musk is a pretty terrible person both in terms of his personality and his politics. But pretty terrible people can nevertheless be smart and make good engineering decisions. Just look at von Braun as a prime example.

Always interesting to see the view of the degree of Elon Musk’s involvement in his companies’ decisions swing depending on whether the outcome is good or bad.

They are using them, however. They’re visiting websites with them, using apps with them, and so forth.

If they don’t then someone else will.

Meanwhile, publishers: “why is everyone using AI instead of viewing our sites themselves?”

The goal has always been to make these things more human-like, after all.

Interestingly, I’m not seeing your quoted content when I look at this article. I see a three-paragraph-long article that says in a nutshell “people don’t visit source sites as much now that AI summarizes the contents for them.” (Ironic that I am manually summarizing it like that).

Perhaps it’s some kind of paywall blocking me from seeing the rest? I don’t see any popup telling me that, but I’ve got a lot of adblockers that might be stopping that from appearing. I’m not going to disable adblockers just to see whether this is paywalled, given how incredibly intrusive and annoying ads are these days.

Gee, I wonder why people prefer AI.

It’s sort of a monkey’s paw luck, though. The whole reason MAGA is so rabidly obsessed with getting this guy is because he has the media coverage. They made a big dramatic show out of declaring that he’ll “never walk free on American soil again” and now find themselves scrambling to do anything they can to prevent that, regardless of reason.

Angela Merkel had to tell Trump this 11 times in one meeting during his first term. I guess he forgot since then.

Any reason to say that other than that it didn’t give the result you wanted?

The enemy is at the same time too strong and too weak.

That’s a work of fiction. You might as well suggest dropping lightsabres on the bunker.

Why is this any different?

The judgment in the article I linked goes into detail, but essentially you’re asking for the law to let you control something that has never been yours to control before.

If an AI generates something that does indeed provably contain a sample of a piece of music in a song you recorded, then yes, that output may be something you can challenge as a copyright violation. But if the AI’s output doesn’t contain an identifiable sample, then no, it’s not yours. That’s how copyright works, it’s about the actual tangible expression.

It’s not about the analysis if copyrighted works, which is what AI training is doing. That’s never been something that copyright holders have any say over.

Funny, for me it was quite heartening. If it had gone the other way it could have been disastrous for freedom of information and culture and learning in general. This decision prevents big publishers like Disney from claiming shares of the pie - their published works are free for anyone with access to them to train on, they don’t need special permission or to pay special licensing fees.