I won't comment on ESG stuff, but regarding the original point of credit score:
paying off a debt early to pay less interest hurts your credit score.
they still can’t get above an 800 credit score, simply because they pay off the loans quicker.
Exactly. It's about predictability. Paying as originally stated is what's ideal for these purposes.
entirely based on whether the debt was paid or not.
No. It's about predictability, not paying the debt itself.
Anyone with $2000 could take $2000 in debt and spend $4000 in nonsense and be left with nothing. Having money is not a good indicator.
What you want to know is how predictably they pay off debts. This requires not debt, but a history of paying them regularly and on time.
Consumer 3d printers are relatively new. Safety standards haven't been figured out yet, and I'm afraid humans learn through suffering.
Clever brands will evolve to advertise heating sensors and other safety features. This matters on a heating machine that is expected to be left working for hours without supervision.
That's not what money laundering means.
Money laundering is to 'legitimize' money made from illegal means by passing it off as income/profit through another company. As an example, if you make $10,000 selling drugs, you make a little store and make it "sell" $10,000. After paying taxes on the income, you legally keep the difference in your pocket without anyone wondering why you suddenly have a new car.
Generative AI should be considered transformative as far as the copyright of its training data is concerned, just like an artist with a memory of every painting and movie they've seen.
The EU recently released their AI regulation framework. It's actually sensible except for copyright stuff, where they fucked up royally. They require proper copyright license for training data, which means the EU is untenable for AI development. The EU is now condemned to be a user and not an innovator of AI.
Copyrighted training data WILL be used for AI, whether it needs to be done illegally or in countries that allow it. All you accomplish with copyright regulations on AI is taking your country out of the race.
I'm not against that. Although I'd be more into the soundtrack than the sound itself. The music of that movie did something very interesting in fuzzing the line between analog and synthesized in their folkish music. It sounded very new to me and I greatly respect it.
Many people today, both men and women, seek salvation in a partner. They believe the complementarity of a relationship would solve all their problems and make them happy. But it isn't so. Another person brings their own problems.
It makes general good sense, except the copyright stuff. More from follow up questions at ChatGPT:
- Developers of general-purpose AI models must provide a detailed summary of copyrighted materials used in training. This means companies will have to disclose if they have used copyrighted music, texts, or images in training datasets.
- The "Memorization" Question – The Act does not seem to differentiate explicitly between models that "memorize" data and those that simply learn patterns. It leans toward requiring compliance regardless of whether the AI retains exact copies of training data or just abstracts patterns.
- Transformative Use? – The Act does not explicitly recognize AI training as transformative use in the way some U.S. interpretations of fair use might. While one could argue that training data is used in a transformative way (since it does not reproduce original works verbatim), the regulation does not currently provide an exemption for AI training solely on the basis of transformation. Instead, it leans on existing copyright laws, meaning AI developers may need permission from rights holders to train models using copyrighted data.
And the conclusions:
- High Compliance Costs – AI companies will have to negotiate licenses for vast amounts of data or manually filter out copyrighted content, which is expensive and time-consuming.
- Barrier to Entry for Startups – Large companies may afford licensing deals, but smaller developers may struggle to access enough data, making AI development an elite, corporate-dominated field.
- Competitive Disadvantage – Non-EU companies (like OpenAI, Google, or Anthropic) trained their models under less restrictive laws and may continue innovating without the same limitations.
- Chilling Effect on AI Research – If research institutions and developers fear legal risks, they might avoid training models on essential datasets, stifling breakthroughs.
Finally:
It risks making the EU a consumer, not a leader, in AI. If startups can't train models efficiently, they'll be forced to license AI from non-EU companies, reducing the region’s sovereignty and competitiveness in AI development.
A possible outcome? AI innovation shifts elsewhere while the EU mostly regulates and consumes foreign AI models.
Here's what ChatGPT has to say about the actual AI Act text compared to common complaints in this thread:
Key Provisions of the AI Act:
-
Risk-Based Classification: AI systems are categorized based on their potential risk levels:
- Unacceptable Risk: Practices such as social scoring by governments and real-time biometric identification in public spaces are prohibited.
- High Risk: AI applications in critical sectors like healthcare, transportation, and law enforcement are subject to stringent requirements.
- Limited and Minimal Risk: Applications with lower risk levels face fewer obligations but are encouraged to adhere to voluntary codes of conduct.
-
Transparency Obligations: Developers and users of AI systems must disclose when individuals are interacting with AI, especially in cases of deep fakes or AI-generated content. This ensures that users are aware when content is artificially created or manipulated.
-
Data Governance: The Act emphasizes the quality and governance of data used to train AI systems, ensuring respect for fundamental rights, including privacy and data protection.
-
Oversight and Enforcement: National supervisory authorities are designated to oversee compliance, with the power to impose fines for violations.
Addressing Public Concerns:
Some individuals have expressed apprehension that the AI Act could:
-
Curtail Free Speech: The requirement to label AI-generated content aims to prevent misinformation and uphold transparency, not to suppress free expression. The Act explicitly states that compliance with transparency obligations should not impede the right to freedom of expression and the arts.
-
Impose Strict Copyright Demands: The Act acknowledges the challenges in training AI models with vast amounts of data, some of which may be protected by copyright. It emphasizes that any use of copyrighted content requires authorization unless exceptions apply. Providers of general-purpose AI models are obligated to produce summaries about the content used for training and implement policies to comply with EU copyright law.
In summary, the AI Act seeks to balance innovation with the protection of fundamental rights, including free speech and intellectual property. While it introduces obligations to ensure transparency and accountability in AI systems, it also provides exceptions and clarifications to prevent undue restrictions on expression and to address concerns related to copyright in AI training data.
It's not a Christian game. You're just killing extradimensional alien invaders that look like stereotypical depictions of demons. They're not demons, don't actually act like demons, and aren't incorporeal like demons.
I've seen him in GoT and Mandalorian. He has a decent range. I don't think it's fair to call him untalented.
As for why he's pushed, he meets three criteria:
- Talented enough to be on the list.
- Ethnic-looking.
- Whore to the ideology.
Pastors were originally male because Catholic priests were always male. Priests are male because 1) mediterranean ancient societies were patriarchal and Jewish tradition was too, 2) Jesus chose twelve male apostles, and 3) the apostles and their successors in the early church kept the tradition by their authority.
You're arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm not giving my opinion here: I'm describing how it actually works.
When one makes a debt and promises to pay in X cuotas of $200, as a lender I can make plans for that income through time. Any deviation, regardless of whether the debt is paid, creates uncertainty. Even "positive" uncertainty worries me, because it could mean, for all I know, that the person might be impulsive (an unwelcome character trait in borrowers). Many people pay their debts early once they get money because they don't trust themselves not to waste it. Paying early can be an indicator of untrustworthiness.
So, lenders want predictability. Not just of paying the debt: that is not enough. They want predictability of each payment step. That is what determines that the borrower is disciplined and does things as expected.