It doesn't help that modern society in the Anglosphere considers as "child" any minor up to 17 years and 364 days of age. But as soon as you start thinking your dick, you're not a child anymore, in my opinion. A pack of uncivilized early teenagers can easily manage to be a public danger.
I found he has an X account where he posts updates and ramblings: https://x.com/foundring1
Not unexpected that he'd lose jobs by posting these songs online with his face and voice and his political views, although I don't know how viable it is to get monetized by the video hosting platforms with this kind of content.
My user account is as old as this website; I figured it could have been due to the contents of the post. Admittedly, I haven't posted a lot over the years, but the song was so fun, and the singer so talented (as well as brave) that I had to share it here.
embrace art itself for its own sake, and create for the joy of creation without expectation of monetary compensation.
The main issue I have with this is that reaching a level where the art you're drawing/painting/sculpting yourself is not complete crap takes a huge amount of time and dedication, unlike perhaps any other hobby. Above a certain level, and not even that high, you'd practically have to treat it as a job in order to compete. Almost nobody sane in their mind (or who is not a child) would do that without some expectation of earning something back from it in the long term, at least.
What is the incentive for people to go through all that hell with just their own efforts, now that just any rando can type some words, click a button and do 98% of the work?
You can't earn anything from it, you won't be recognized in the sea of AI-generated images, the learning process is long and tedious (often done at the expense of more useful skills that you could have learned instead) and not always fun, and if you do make something good and share it with others, it will be scraped and assimilated into newer AI models. Who benefits from this?
It's incredibly dumb considering the amount of data it takes to train AI models, and that the process is completely transformative and does not seek to memorize the training data. Their justification: "it's about transparency, fairness and accountability."
Among other bureaucratic bullshit, they're requiring AI companies to disclose the training methods and training data to fulfill copyright obligations in the EU. This alone will be a disaster because most of the available data for training AI models, even public, has some sort of copyright protection unless explicitly marked as public domain or given a free distribution license. (checking out the copyright status of every single piece of available data is not feasible either).
Unintended consequences: only the larger multi-billion companies with the resources for acquiring rights to use the data will thrive.
On the other hand, Meta and other US AI companies have been sued for using copyrighted training data; see for example this: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67569326/kadrey-v-meta-platforms-inc/?page=3
The distilled models inherit the censorship of the base models they were trained on and the one available via web interface is also guardrailed, but the original R1 model that many people are using via API (although being open-weight, technically you can download and use it locally if you have enough hardware) can say about anything.
They are for the most part acting as the middle man here. As GPU processing power further increases and becomes more easily available to the general public (together with suitable tools as done by StableDiffusion), it is expected that photostock companies and not just the artists who provided the photos in the first place will eventually cease to exist as well.
Thousands of scientific journals exist and new ones get created on a regular basis even by dissident scientists who want to publish their own research, however crazy it might be (there is notably long-running one even for cold fusion topics, I'm aware several exist for parapsychology, etc), but they don't have the "Impact Factor" of Nature, so almost nobody cites or even reads the papers they feature.
Yep, just have a look at MEMRI's board of advisors and directors.
I don't subscribe to the fed's hidden database hypothesis. The attackers probably got such material from the dark web. Occasionally there are news about large discussion forums with hundreds of thousands of users there closing down. So many users implies there isn't even a high barrier to access to it.
Bitchute blocks content on a per-country basis, by the way. From the USA one might have the impression it is a generally free-speech streaming video website, but from the point of view of other countries things might be different.
I haven't been able to see embedded images or linked videos for a while. Images are geo-blocked, apparently.