I doesn't need to be full on UBI. In a lot of countries grants mechanisms and public purchasing mechanisms for art already make up a significant proportion of income for artists. Especially in smaller countries, this is very common (more so for literary works, movies and music where language provides a significant barrier to accessing a bigger audience, but for other art too). Imagine perhaps a tax/compulsory licensing mechanism that doesn't stop AI training but instead massively expands those funding sources for people whose data are included in training sets.

This is not stoppable, not least because it's "too cheap" to buy content outright.

I pointed out elsewhere that e.g. OpenAI could buy all of Getty Images for ~2% of their currently estimated market cap based on a rumoured recent cash infusion. Financing vast amounts of works for hire just creates a moat for smaller players while the big players will still be able to keep improving their models.

As such it will do nothing to protect established artists, so we need expansion of ways to fund artists whether or not inclusion of copyrighted works in training sets becomes restricted.

An AI model will "notice them" but ignore them if trained on enough copies with them to learn that they're not significant.

I've never read the books, but I did enjoy the movies, and it's really disappointing. I have the DVDs, so I guess I could still watch those knowing it won't signal any continued demand the way streaming them would, but still.

Pica is eating things that are not food, but as pointed out in the article I linked, eating dog poo is providing a significant source of nutrition for foxes. In those circumstances, it by definition is not pica.

How he picks his nose doesn't matter. How he runs a tech company and how he affects people working in tech does.

And the popular answer does equal the right answer when the question is "does this community think this question is relevant to this community?" The votes are literally this community telling you whether or not it thinks that is true.

I’m simply applying the logic the Palestinians apply.

This might be relevant if it was a Palestinian state imposing apartheid on Israel. If so, they would be equally worthy of condemnation irrespective of who had which historical claim to what land.

But they are not, so bringing it up is yet another attempt at victim-blaming.

Had Israel stopped at a point of doing the bare minimum to secure its legally recognized borders, or indeed the borders they themselves recognize, and attempted to avoid oppressing innocent civilians for decades, there'd likely still be conflicts, but then Israel would have something of a moral leg to stand on. They have not. They do not. As it is, they are occupiers, as recognized by their own government and their own courts.

I’d also feel more empathy for the apartheid conditions if Palestinians would stop electing a political group who’s stated goals are the deaths of every Jewish person.

Hamas didn't even exist until a couple of decades into the oppression. It was formed as a result of the failure of PLO to get Israel to the table, so this is blaming the victims again for responding to decades of Israeli unwillingness to end their oppression.

Also, notice how in contrast to your repeated talk of the Palestinians as a unified group while assigning blame, not once have I tried to blame the Israeli people as a whole for Israel's actions, despite the fact that a majority of them have elected governments in every single election for the entire existence of their state that have continued a policy of illegal occupations and apartheid?

I stand by that. Just like the Palestinian people as a whole can not be judged for the actions of Hamas, neither can the Israeli people as a whole be judged for the actions of the Israeli state.

Are you going to do the same, or are you going continue to assign collective blame to people including the millions on either side who have no power whatsoever to influence the actions of any of the belligerent parties and/or who oppose them? Including the millions in the West Bank who are largely cut off from even being able to intervene in what goes on in Gaza due to Israeli apartheid policies beyond the control of Palestinians in the West Bank.

And as I said it’s comical you keep saying I support apartheid policies by simply stating killing innocent people is fucking wrong and deplorable no matter what side does it.

When you criticise only specific and limited outcomes of the oppression rather than the oppression itself, then, yes, it's natural to presume you're fine with the oppression. Notice how even here you only express opposition to the killing of innocents, and not against the imposition of apartheid or the illegal occupation that created the conditions for it over multiple generations.

If Ukraine starts liquidating Russian cities and raping, torturing, kidnapping, and using innocent’s as human shields I’d say the same fucking thing to them and pull my support. If this is how Palestine wants to do things I shed no tears as they are destroyed.

If your support for opposition to oppression is contingent on the oppressed doing no wrong, then you're really just looking for any excuse to side with the oppressors.

My support for the Ukranian people, as for the Palestinian people is unconditional. That does not mean I support every action made on their behalf. I do not. That does not mean there aren't actions I find deplorable. It does not mean I don't sympathise with innocent victims.

It does mean that in an asymmetric fight the oppressor is the only side that has the choice of ending the oppression, and until they do they have no moral standing to complain when some of their victims lash out in desperation - the oppressor is ultimately always the culpable party for every consequence of their oppression.

Anything else is to create an incentive for oppressors to be extra brutal in order to provoke an extreme response, knowing that if they do, they'll have people like you ready to dismiss the plight of the entire oppressed population because some of them were pushed into a level of desperation where they've gone too far.

Abusing the term antisemitism to deflect criticism from an apartheid regime is disgusting.

Still many who don't, though, and they're the main reason I still occasionally go back.

I think chances are we are at a stage where most would-be smokers would just opt for vaping, given that while it sounds like he wants some restrictions on that as well, it doesn't like that'd be subjected to the year over year age increase?

Thank you. I will 😘

That sounds like it'll be more than solid enough.

If my own experience had been unique, or been contradicted by the data, you'd have a point, but it's an experience shared by almost everyone I follow, many of whom have abandoned larger followings on Twitter for the same reason, and it's an experience where the only thing in question given the data is how rapid the decline is, not whether the decline is happening.