There's all the ML features that have that Android and windows are still catching up to. Let me know when I can search for that paper document I took a photo of by ctrl+f for a string I remember in it.
For an individual, perhaps. Even there some exceptions can be found though: taking on a mortgage to buy a house can be the right decision even though you could keep on renting and don't technically need to take on the debt.
For a business it gets much muddier: do they "need" to take on debt if it makes them more competitive in the market? A company with a well optimized capital structure containing both debt and equity can be much more profitable than a company without, and can use those extra profits to out-compete companies that are less efficient.
I don't know, I kind of get the security and theft deterrent angle. It's even something I'm willing to pay extra for — I mean, a phone is not a toaster, there's lots of important personal and work stuff on the phone, passwords, documents. None of my Apple devices has ever had to be repaired, but if something happens to my iPhone's Face ID camera tomorrow, I'm heading straight to an authorized shop, no way I'm letting some shopping mall booth tech take chances with something this important.
Actually there are plenty. Look at second hand car parts market and ask yourself how many of them come from stolen carts which are dismembered and packed in boxes the night they're stolen.
iPhones are the same. There's a whole phishing industry to get people to unlock stolen iphones just so they can be wiped and resold.
I think the US made it very clear what will happen to you if you provide proof. Better prepare for a Snowden life in the best case. If you are less lucky you might end up Assange.
We're living in age where military base layouts are leaked by fitness trackers. Top secret battle maps leak onto Discord video game channels. Not even as an act of spying, just by accident or carelessness. I just cannot accept that any truly massive secrets could be kept sealed for long. It's the same reason the Area 51 conspiracies are bunk.
How do you expect evidence to be presented when even acknowledging existence of such possibility is highly illegal? Garry Webb suicided with two gunshot wounds to the head.
> "If we had met five years ago, you wouldn't have found a more staunch defender of the newspaper industry than me ... And then I wrote some stories that made me realize how sadly misplaced my bliss had been. The reason I'd enjoyed such smooth sailing for so long hadn't been, as I'd assumed, because I was careful and diligent and good at my job ... The truth was that, in all those years, I hadn't written anything important enough to suppress."
[..]
> Webb's ex-wife, Susan Bell, told reporters that she believed Webb had died by suicide. "The way he was acting it would be hard for me to believe it was anything but suicide," she said. According to Bell, Webb had been unhappy for some time over his inability to get a job at another major newspaper. He had sold his house the week before his death because he was unable to afford the mortgage.
So he was killed indirectly; not a distinction I personally care about. Unless you are investigating state crimes yourself, I wouldn't throw popcorn from the cheap seats.
It’s difficult to provide proof when the act of doing so is either illegal, or gets you targeted by a major nation state. We may never get proof. We may only get proof decades after the fact when it becomes irrelevant.
In cases like this we have to weigh the likelihood and risk regardless, and proactively protect ourselves.
Existing media paradigms will not be around for very long, for better or worse. Intellectual property exists because high quality film, music, books, and more, require labor and resources to produce. Within a few years quality media of any type will be so plentiful and abundant it be as cheap as dirt.
No one today hires elite guards to protect a 50kg bag of salt... but at one time we did.
This is about as believable as a cryptobro saying "fiat currency will not be around for very long, for better or worse".
You can't produce genuinely new things with a human point of view based on lived experience with generative AI and there's no reason to expect that will be happen in the near future. Humans care about human stories and they care most about novel stories, not chewed-over already-told stories.
That said, with any luck we'll just get back to typewriters and film photos and we can shut the internet down for everything but email and Wikipedia. To do otherwise would leave thoughts, hopes and dreams open for consumption by software expressly designed to use them against their creators.
AI can produce genuinely new things right now. Go look at the brand new biological proteins being made by rfDiffusion.
You have no clue what is and isn't possible for AI to produce, and neither does anyone else. We haven't even hit the limit of current algorithms yet - Dall-E 3's creativity is mindblowing.
I agree with this. If there is close to zero cost for creativity and works of art then there does not need to be an incentive through copyright which gives a was designed to give a timed monopoly on works. I for one am looking forward to those times when we are no longer shackled by intelectual "property" law.
