Waymo, the autonomous driving tech firm whose so-called ‘robo-taxis’ are now roaming the streets of London, has told cycling campaigners that expecting their driverless cars to respect cycle lanes is “too high a bar” – because their customers want to be dropped off in them.According to the Highway Code, motorists “must not drive or park ... Read more
This reminds me of the old “we can’t exist without copyright theft” defense from AI companies. Okay, well, maybe you shouldn’t exist?
Breaking laws as a business model is how a lot of companies started, look at Uber and AirBnB for example. They even have a name for this, they call it “disruption”.
I really would prefer our laws had teeth and the leadership of Airbnb and uber had had their lives ruined.
Uber was kicked out of Denmark for not driving with a Taxi licence and not following the rules. Now they are back in Denmark by buying an existing taxi company.
Yup, these two illustrate pretty well why those laws are important
Copying is not theft. “Copyright” is actually a privilege, a copy monopoly. Its original length of 10 years was a reasonable compromise between the right to freely share culture and the desire for artists to be able to live off of the incomes of their work. The current “70 years after creator’s death” is absurd and oppressive.
The real problem is that AI companies copyright/monopolize the things they copied.
What are you even talking about? The real problem is that the AI companies are not being held accountable for breaking the law. Who cares what the original implementation of copyright law was? Why do AI companies get to play by different rules (hint capitalism)
The main objective of free software is to destroy copyright. To be fair, AI did a lot more than Stallman and the GPL license in that regard.
Recycle the metals