MangoCats

Well, of course, it's different than a Casino. It's bigger. It's a longer running game. But it still pushes those "get rich quick" addiction buttons. You're right, there are addiction awareness resources built up around traditional gambling channels, disclosure that "the house always wins." In a sense, the stock markets are a long enough, slow enough running game that many players do actually die before the longer running Ponzi schemes collapse - so maybe the lack of addiction support groups is a little big justified there.

There's also an unclear distinction drawn between "day traders" and "long term investors" which is so fuzzy as to be meaningless anywhere near the boundary, if there even is a boundary. How can you tell if your mutual fund is day trading?

That people keep buying into… so the cycle continues.

More's the shame. Our last console was a PS3, it was such a non-fun waste of time that we never bought into the 4 or 5. I used to buy a new PC title a year or so before than, really none new since StarCraft II.

I used to think that the market "drove engagement" - keeping people with money interested in the dealings of the companies they invested their money in.

Lately, I feel like it's just a giant Casino.

I wish we could cut her suffering short somehow – for us as much as her.

Our legislators and judges are enormous chicken shits for not addressing this issue better. In a way, I would call them demented torture masters for their lack of clear and humane definition of when assisted suicide and mercy killing are legally permissible. Not required, but when all competent parties are in agreement? Keeping people with no quality of life and no hope of recovery alive with technology can't be called anything but torture, in my opinion.

many many people are either directly, or indirectly related/responsible for someone’s death.

You want to get philosophical? Every mother and father are both directly responsible for the death of their children - even when that death is natural causes by old age, it wouldn't have happened if they weren't born.

You have definitely met someone who will kill themselves in the end. The rate is about 1/70 people in the US, and for every successful suicide there are 32 attempts of varying seriousness.

Material can be anything.

And, if you're trying to authorize law enforcement to arrest and prosecute, you want the broadest definitions possible.

Google doesn't ban for hate or feels, they ban by algorithm. The algorithms address legal responsibilities and concerns. Are the algorithms perfect? No. Are they good? Debatable. Is it possible to replace those algorithms with "thinking human beings" that do a better job? Also debatable, from a legal standpoint they're probably much better off arguing from a position of algorithm vs human training.

if the debate is even possible then the writing is awful.

Awfully well compensated in terms of advertising views as compared with "good" writing.

Capitalism in the "free content market" at work.

can be easily interpreted as something...

This is pretty much the art of sensational journalism, popular song lyric writing and every other "writing for the masses" job out there.

Factual / accurate journalism? More noble, but less compensated.

Google’s only failure here was to not unban on his first or second appeal.

My experience of Google and the unban process is: it doesn't exist, never works, doesn't even escalate to a human evaluator in a 3rd world sweatshop - the algorithm simply ignores appeals inscrutably.

The statement that "No one can own what AI produces. It is inherently public domain" is partially true, but the situation is more nuanced, especially in the United States.

Here is a breakdown of the key points:

Human Authorship is Required: In the U.S., copyright law fundamentally requires a human author. Works generated entirely by an AI, without sufficient creative input or control from a human, are not eligible for copyright protection and thus fall into the public domain.

"Sufficient" Human Input Matters: If a human uses AI as an assistive tool but provides significant creative control, selection, arrangement, or modification to the final product, the human's contributions may be copyrightable. The U.S. Copyright Office determines the "sufficiency" of human input on a case-by-case basis.

Prompts Alone Are Generally Insufficient: Merely providing a text prompt to an AI tool, even a detailed one, typically does not qualify as sufficient human authorship to copyright the output.

International Variations: The U.S. stance is not universal. Some other jurisdictions, such as the UK and China, have legal frameworks that may allow for copyright in "computer-generated works" under certain conditions, such as designating the person who made the "necessary arrangements" as the author.

In summary, purely AI-generated content generally lacks copyright protection in the U.S. and is in the public domain. However, content where a human significantly shapes the creative expression may be copyrightable, though the AI-generated portions alone remain unprotectable.

To help you understand the practical application, I can explain the specific requirements for copyrighting a work that uses both human creativity and AI assistance. Would you like me to outline the specific criteria the U.S. Copyright Office uses to evaluate "sufficient" human authorship for a project you have in mind?

Use at your own risk, AI can make mistakes, but in this case it agrees 100% with my prior understanding.