This would be illegal in a world not run by Microsoft and companies like it.

That first claim makes no sense and you make no argument to back it up. The distinction is actually quite meaningful; generative AI generates new samples from an existing distribution, be it text, audio, images, or anything else. Other forms of AI solve numerous problems in different ways, such as identifying patterns we can’t or inventing novel and more optimal solutions.

Oh, so mobile-only.

How did you do that?

We need to make it illegal to force people to use a chatbot. It’s just a way to create the most frustrating experience possible without even having to pay an Indian call center. It’s the new version of being put on hold for an hour and then getting transferred and put on hold for another hour, someone you can barely understand picking up the phone, and then hanging up on you after you explain what you want and making you call again.

I hate that YouTube Music keeps trying to make me waste my bandwidth on videos that have worse audio quality than when it just plays the song. 0/10 smoothbrain design, probably just to sell more video ads.

My point was that using the Sun, Earth, or really any object as a reference is arbitrary and the “same position” at two different points in time is completely undefined.

Actually 🤓, position and velocity are relative, so that’s a nonsensical statement without defining a reference object for the Earth’s position. If we’re not assuming you end up safely on dry land, you could just as easily end up light-years away as wherever you were relative to the sun.

I don’t see how it could be scumbag. Fear of sharks != fear of people in very obvious and unrealistic shark costumes. People who are afraid of ghosts don’t have panic attacks from seeing people in ghost costumes on Halloween.

It doesn’t sound like they typically check for most items, just the expensive ones and the date on the receipt. That makes it even more theater and less practical.

Of course, it’s perfectly reasonable that if you know someone stole something, you can stop them. Under the prerequisite conditions section, it is stated that:

The shopkeeper has reasonable grounds to suspect the particular person detained is shoplifting.

Wouldn’t that mean that someone who has done nothing suspicious other than refusing the check would not be giving anyone reasonable grounds to stop them? Or does just refusing count as reasonable grounds and make the check effectively legally mandatory?

someone who can is waiting(and the salarymen can, shopkeeper’s privilege apparently in the US)

Can you elaborate on this? I’ve never heard of it.

Captchas are actually a great tool for reducing spam and botting. Depending on the platform, they can directly benefit you. Captchas and manual approval for Lemmy account signups are directly responsible for the lack of spambots on this platform. The problem is that captchas got co-opted to force people to give companies free AI training data.

It should be illegal to revoke or modify people’s purchases. All games should be able to be kept and played using the version you bought it at except maybe MMOs due to technical reasons. Forced updates and DRM need to be outlawed.

Could a state order all businesses operating in that state to stop paying taxes?

That would mean that the corporations basically paid people’s taxes for them, right? Wouldn’t that just get factored into salaries?

I guess it would, at most, only work with people who get paid from the same state.

This is the answer I was looking for. Thanks! A simple “no” wasn’t very informative.

I don’t mean legally. I mean “just doing it” regardless of the law.

The real problem with AI is that you have to be so damn skeptical even of real posts.