I agree with you about naive-user experience, and world-weary users. Nobody is a naive user in 2026. My oldest kid is 25. He learned to read so he could understand other players and NPCs in RuneScape. He's never been a naive user.
Can confirm the heat. In the early 1990s I got bumped from a flight out of Phoenix because it was so hot the density altitude meant they couldn't load the plane as heavily as usual.
The former U.S. senator and University of Florida president
I'm not sure we should listen to Sasse. Sure, he voted to convict Trump the 2nd time Trump was impeached, but Sasse resigned a short way into his 2nd term as senator instead of sticking around and either doing what Nebraskans want done, or bring an anti-Trump leader. His presidency of UF seems to have been a little sketchy, with allegations of unusually large spending.
Silly article that diffuses blame. The author identified a lot of causes, all of which Trump himself seems to have chosen. The author doesn't mention Trump until paragraph 15:
The economic and political risks could tempt the Trump administration into...
This portrays Trump and his admin as without agency, without responsibility, as innocents who can be tempted, lured into traps. Interesting choices, given Trump's real actions and orders.
Interesting. In addition to Anthropic's watermark use to prevent model collapse, we can definitively call something copyrighted or not copyrighted. This is a boon to everyone who consumes culture.
That doesn't actually work. Say you took a book and used an AI to translate it into another language. The translation wouldn't have an additional copyright, the way it would if a human had done the work, but the output would still be restricted by the original copyright. So the presence of the watermark does not tell you that the text is public domain.
I thought translations can be copyrighted separately. Their are translators for instance who translate very old texts from other countries/languages and then sell that book/translation using copyright to protect this business models? Not sure but does this mean if you as a human wrote a book in English and then used AI to translate to another language say French then that translated work would not be copyrighted. Not sure how this would work.
Translation, in and of itself, is viewed as a creative work. A translated work has two copyrights: the original, and the translation, with permission needed from all rightsholders to redistribute. A new translation of a public domain work (Emily Wilson’s The Odyssey) has one copyright holder, the translator. An existing work (the English translation of The Three Body Problem) has at least two: the original author and the translator.
However! Since AI work is noncopyrightable, the AI’s effort in translation is simply ignored. Claude’s The Odyssey would have zero rightsholders, and remain public domain. ChatGPT’s translation of The Three Body Problem would still be under Liu Cixin’s copyright.
Lmao. No. Content that is wholesale generated by AI is also not subject to copyright in the US. It relies on the honor system and you can always modify the material juuuust enough that you can claim the copyright. In practical terms, this changes nothing.
reply