Civilized countries should never be standing firmly with genocide, irrespective of who engages in it.

Israel is also killing journalists, as well as aid workers, its own hostage citizens waving white flags, along with thousands of non combative Palestinians, the majority being women and children.

Israel forces have killed Israeli hostages under a white flag, killed large numbers of women and children, bombed hospitals and refugee camps, along with killing reporters and aid workers...while Israel always had the right to defend itself that is not justification for extrajudicial killings or genocide, both of which should provoke harsh international condemnation and responses.

HomeAssistant...this is the way!

Being Australian this is likely one to report to the ACCC, as Aussies at least have basic consumer protection, though that get murky with overseas tech entities.

Not being American have I got this right, there is a bipartisan bill aimed at punishing South Africa for raising what the the International Court of Justice then subsequently found it plausible Israel has committed acts of genocide against Gaza?

If the US wants to advocate for adherence to a rules based order then it has to be willing to abide by it, otherwise why would others?

uBlock Origin: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/?utm_source=addons.mozilla.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=search

Irrespective of what anyone thinks of Ben & Jerry’s position, pro peace is not antisemitic, particularly when consistently applied to a range of entities and mirrored in actions, rather than just words.

I will repeat what I have proffered before:

If OpenAI stated that it is impossible to train leading AI models without using copyrighted material, then, unpopular as it may be, the preemptive pragmatic solution should be pretty obvious, enter into commercial arrangements for access to said copyrighted material.

Claiming a failure to do so in circumstances where the subsequent commercial product directly competes in a market seems disingenuous at best, given what I assume is the purpose of copyrighted material, that being to set the terms under which public facing material can be used. Particularly if regurgitation of copyrighted material seems to exist in products inadequately developed to prevent such a simple and foreseeable situation.

Yes I am aware of the USA concept of fair use, but the test of that should be manifestly reciprocal, for example would Meta allow what it did to MySpace, hack and allow easy user transfer, or Google with scraping Youtube.

To me it seems Big Tech wants its cake and to eat it, where investor $$$ are used to corrupt open markets and undermine both fundamental democratic State social institutions, manipulate legal processes, and undermine basic consumer rights.

So, OpenAI is admitting its models are open to manipulation by anyone and such manipulation can result in near verbatim regurgitation of copyright works, have I understood correctly?

A little late to allegedly break sound barrier in 2025: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_barrier

Monopolistic gatekeepers pretending to be otherwise...that the rest of the world does not have equal rigor, and the EU itself at times quivering when it comes to regulating big tech, should be of concern.