Because the assholes got to “men’s rights” “men’s movement” en masse, and you’ll spend your whole life critiquing individuals and find communities full of those individuals when you see those words.

They would have to call cubes back from where they are pushing territory on the other side of their territory.

The Borg were not just fighting one species when they came to get the Federation, they were expanding outwards on all sides. So they committed the lowest level of resources they believed were necessary, and because the Queen was an arrogant fool, that was just one cube.

For First Contact, you can argue that having been thus far unable to assimilate the Federation they are unaware of the speed of human advancement. In the Star Trek Universe it has been implied that humans are EXCEPTIONALLY inventive especially when faced with a problem, and that the Federation is even FASTER than humanity alone because of the additional viewpoints added to human inventiveness. Basically, the Human Problem of Fantasy Games where the humans are an average, all-around boring species while Elves and Dwarves and others all have specialties? That’s not applicable to Star Trek Universe, where humans are especially well-suited to be engineers, and highly valued for their social abilities which foster teamwork. The presence of humans in the Federation is one of the ingredients that makes the Federation uniquely effective at technological advancement. Not only is the Federation large and powerful, it advances more quickly than the species that the Borg have assimilated, and has advanced to a level that the Borg never allow other species to advance to, AND it advances the way the Borg do by peacefully trading and adding technologies when it admits new member species.

The Queen never dealt with a society like the Federation before, and she didn’t expect them to advance very far beyond their capabilities at Wolf 359. She figured her cube was better, and that should be good enough and if by some weirdness it wasn’t she would destroy the Federation by going back in time and destroying its weirdest, least predictable species: humanity.

deleted by creator

Hives suggests she’s allergic to something. Yeah, see a vet.

Mine keep getting caught on stuff if I don’t clip their claws.

See, now THIS is rentrophy.

If someone ever made dummy cartridges they would sell nicely, I suspect.

@Num10ck Put a black cartridge where the color cartridge should be?

That’s thing, though. That’s the question the court is answering. It says that the closest human is STILL NOT CLOSE ENOUGH if they aren’t doing the same level of control and work as a human would be doing if they gave them the prompt.

If you use an AI as just another tool, that’s one thing. But just giving a prompt is NOT creating art.

@nous I figure a judge wouldn’t count prompts because they are basically commissions. If you commission an artist to create a piece for you, it’s still their piece. If a corporation commissions the artist to create the piece, they can own it as work-for-hire, which is EXACTLY what Thaler was trying to claim in this case, but they aren’t the creator.

If you can replace “AI” with “Professional Artist” and you wouldn’t be eligible for your amount of input, then it’s not copyrightable.

@foggy There’s another article that clarifies the decision. Works created by a human with AI assistance are copyrightable. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-works-not-copyrightable-studios-1235570316/

Works created solely by AI, like if all the human did was enter a prompt into ChatGPT or Midjourney, are not copyrightable.

@liztliss My personal theory is that they know we aren’t a cat like them, but they figure we think the same way they do and that most everyone shows affection and communicates like a cat. I could be wrong, but it seems to fit.

@rx8geek Useless? I put little ice cubes in their water!

@Freesoftwareenjoyer Gaming isn’t as bad as cryptomining farms and the stuff required by an AI server, man. You need to go look up some of the load on this stuff.

And you still haven’t gotten back to me on how AI improves society. People too lazy to learn to draw can say they drew something they actually didn’t? That’s not improvement.

@Freesoftwareenjoyer Anyone could create art before. Anyone could edit photos. And with practice, they could become good. Artists aren’t some special class of people born to draw, they are people who have honed their skills.

And for people who didn’t want to hone their skills, they could pay for art. You could argue that’s a change but AI is not gonna be free forever, and you’ll probably end up paying in the near future to generate that art. Which, be honest, is VERY different from “making art.” You input a direction and something else made it, which isn’t that different from just getting a friend to draw it.

@Freesoftwareenjoyer Out of curiosity, how is the world appreciably different now that AI exists?

@SCB The Luddites gave way to Unions, which yes were more effective and gave us a LOT of good things like the 8 hour work week, weekends, and vacations. Technology alone did not give us that. Technology applied as bosses and barons wanted did not give us that. Collective action did that. And collective action has evolved along a timeline that INCLUDES sabotaging technology.

Things like the SAGAFTRA/WGA strike are what’s going to get us good results from the adoption of AI. Until then, the AI is just a tool in the hands of the rich to control labor.

@Freesoftwareenjoyer interesting you mention stopping burning coal. Because mining and burning coal is bad for the environment.

Guess what else is bad for the environment? Huge datacenters supporting AI. They go through electricity and water and materials at the same rates as bitcoin mining.

A human being writing stuff only uses as much energy as a human being doing just about anything else, though.

So yes, while ending coal would cost some miners jobs, the net gain is worth it. But adopting AI in standard practice in the entertainment industry does not have the same gains. It can’t offset the human misery caused by the job loss.

@new_acct_who_dis Yeah, but that wouldn’t hurt as much because all the people out of work would still have healthcare.

AI displaced creatives will lose their healthcare.

This weekend my aunt got a room at a ery expensive motel, and was delighted by the fact that a robot delivered amenities to her room. And at breakfast we had an argument about whether or not it saved the hotel money to us the robot instead of a person.

But the bottom line is that the robot was only in use at an extremely expensive hotel and is not commonly seen at cheap hotels. So the robot is a pretty expensive investment, even if it saves money in the long run.

Public schools are NEVER going to make an investment as expensive as an AI teacher, it doesn’t matter how advanced the things get. Besides, their teachers are union. I will give you that rich private schools might try it.