Get a yearly full body skin check from a dermatologist. It’s a common thing. I’ve been doing it for years because of my skin type. They caught early Basal cell carcinoma the last time I went.
I don’t think it’s possible to build this app on an iPad. But, I taught my kids my phone number by making it their passcode. Before that I used it to teach them how to spell their name.
he wouldn't. but eventually, it'll become part of the public domain. at that point, he could release his "work output" and own the copyright on that. that new work could be sold. i worked with someone that did this very thing of restoring copies of old films and released them on DVD
In the us, unpublished works created before 1978 are copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the author (Sweeden might be different though).
So you might be waiting a long time.
> he could release his "work output" and own the copyright on that
Probably not in the united States, but other countries (i know UK at the very least) this would be true. The united states requires "creative decisions" to grant copyright. Work output by itself doesn't count.
You could still distribute it, you just couldn't copyright it.
Just putting the film up on a telecine and transferring it requires creative decisions, so I'm not really sure what you're on about. You're commenting like you know what you're talking about, but you clearly are not familiar with the process. This is something I've absolutely worked on projects to do this very thing. When scanning a film print/negative, there are many decisions to be made that would make yours different than the originals. How far do you zoom in/out on each frame. Does it need pan&scan. Was it shot 4:3, but now you're transferring it to 16:9?? The color decisions will also be unique. Was it B&W, the same applies to the grade. Were there film scratches, dirt, etc that you've now removed/restored? Every single one of these decisions is a creative decisions.
The case of It's a Wonderful Life has shown that specific parts of a movie can be in the public domain while other parts aren't, even down to the music within a public domain scene.
For the dreaded special editions of Star Wars, only Jabba's stupid face or the specific shot of the Death Star exploding with that ugly-looking ring would have a copyright of 1997. The original scenes cleaned and restored would still have a copyright of 1977.
I didn’t buy the hype of any of those things, but I believe AI is a going to change everything much like the introduction of the internet. People are dismissing AI because its code is not bug free, completely dismissing the fact that it generates PRs in minutes from a poorly written text prompt. As if that’s not impressive. In fact if you put a human engineer on the receiving end of the same prompt with the same context as what we’re sending to the LLM, I doubt they could produce code half as good in 10x the time. It’s science fiction coming true, and it’s only going to continue to improve.
Again, there were people just as sure about crypto as you are now about AI. They dismissed criticism because they thought the technology was impressive and revolutionary. That it was science fiction come true and only going to continue to improve. It's the exact same hype-driven rhetoric.
If you want to convince skeptics talk about examples, vibe code a successful business, show off your success with using AI. Telling people it's the future and if you disagree you have your head in the sand, is wholly unconvincing.
As someone who gleefully followed along as the Web3 hype train derailed, an important distinction is that crypto turns every believer into a salesperson, by design. There were some that were truly passionate about the potential applications for blockchain technology, but by and large they were drowned out by people who, having poured $10k into the memecoin of the week, wanted to see the price of that coin rise.
This doesn't feel like that. The applications of generative AI have become self-evident to anyone that's followed their rise. Specific applications of AI resemble snake oil, and there are hucksters who pivoted from crypto to AI, but the ratio of legit use cases to scams isn't even close.
If anything, the incentives for embellishment have flipped since crypto. VC-funded AI companies will dreamily fire press releases about AI taking us to Mars, but it doesn't have the pseudo-grassroots quality of cryptocurrency hype. The average worker is incentivized to be an AI skeptic. The rise of generative AI threatens workers in several fields today, and has already negatively impacted copywriters and freelance artists. I absolutely understand why people in those fields would respond by calling AI use unethical and criticize the shortcomings of today's models.
We'll see what the next few years hold. But personally, I foresee AI integration ramping up. Even if the models themselves completely stagnate from this point on, there's a lot of missing glue between the models and the real world.
You don't have to be able to vibe code an entire business from scratch to know that the technology behind AI is significantly more impressive than VR, crypto, web3 etc. What the free version of ChatGPT can do right now, not just coding; would've been unimaginable to most people just 5 years ago.
Don't people and companies using AI lazily to put out low quality content blind you to its potential as well as the reality of what it can do right now. Look at Google's VO3, most people in the world right now won't be able to tell you that it's AI generated and not real.
This a legit question before having kids, I don’t mean to belittle it, but after having kids, for me, it’s like asking if I wished the people I loved most never existed. The question no longer makes sense.
It wouldn't raise enough money. Probably better to say: "Tax the multi-millionaires", or even people who earn more than 1M USD per year.
What if we change the tax code such that passive income (capital gains, dividends, coupon payments, etc.) is taxed at a higher rate than active (employment) income?
> What if we change the tax code such that passive income (capital gains, dividends, coupon payments, etc.) is taxed at a higher rate than active (employment) income?
Doing so by lowering the active income rate wouldn't raise more money, and doing so by raising the passive income rate would kill investment and job creation and send us into a depression.
That already seems to be happening. Business leaders with capital are actively trying to replace workers with AI or offshoring; so what would be the extra damage from codifying that we want folks to put their money here?
