That's pretty much how it works? Either someone pays specifically for an artist's work, or someone might buy it and donate it, or maybe the artist has an exhibition...
The, post is talking about AI involuntarily taking the collective work of the net and then charging a fee to regurgitate it.
The design with the original freenet could be described as a collective communal hard drive. No individual knew or had control of what content, or more likely portions of content, their node held. They simply offered up an amount of space to the net along with bandwidth.
The data was all encrypted and defined by content hash keys with each request being passed from node to node asking for the key. If the node had it then it was passed to the node requesting it from them, which may or may not be the originator of the request.
Same way with inserts of content. That passing back and forth up a chain makes things functionally anonymous, but easily bottlenecked if you have some slow node in the path.
By not knowing or having control what's stored on their own node it gives the operator plausible deniability in theory. Not sure if that was ever properly tested in a court.
Hmm, though it's exceptionally tough to corral illegal use without attribution, that notion of anonymous posting was one of the principal drivers of the original project. Whistleblowers and the like have solid needs to be able to get info out without it being traced back.
Of course, illegal would have to be defined as well. Inevitably disclosing classified info is illegal, but in many cases not immoral.
I would be interested to see a proper comparison between the original freenet, now known as hyphanet, and this platform. It looks like Ian Clark is the author of both of them with this one originally named Locutus. So in some ways it seems this is the second major rewrite of freenet, the first being the rewrite at version 0.7
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to pay data broker giant Thomson Reuters $125 million for access to its databases of personal data
Article cites DHS rather than ICE, so the parent org rather than immigration enforcement. Why DHS would be doing that, finding blue-voting brown people is the simplest answer.
Spend $1000s to take down what costs a few bucks to rename. Targeting foreign owned entities is at best a show unless other countries want to be subject to US laws
An interesting take and I would like to have the faith that the writer has at humans giving preference to human artists inherently.
My concern would be that should these writing bots become 'good enough' where the development and consistency is at least passible, then the fact that the costs of creating it are so negligable becomes a real factor.
If a book by an AI vs a real author, particularly in the fiction realm where facts don't matter, are not wildly distinguishable but one is produced for a fraction of the cost, it has to have some impact.
You can buy whole kits to build your own, the capacity to control what is made with the is about as much as if you tried to ban someone with a table saw from building a birdhouse.
Because it's minor is what makes it compelling. He can't get one relatively mundane thing done right much less the rest of the insanity he's unleashed.
Between that and the paint coming off in big chunks, it's just works as a symbol of how this admin operates. Give a no-bid contract to a buddy, claiming that he knows best and is the greatest, only to have it fail right away.
The enemy is always there, always under his thumb, They have no, names, no faces, but he has their number. Only he could save us from the enemy within... Zzzz...
That's pretty much how it works? Either someone pays specifically for an artist's work, or someone might buy it and donate it, or maybe the artist has an exhibition...
The, post is talking about AI involuntarily taking the collective work of the net and then charging a fee to regurgitate it.
The difference is choice and free will