If you want the state to fund systematic investigation of systemic crimes, then fine.

> I’m also not claiming all of the burden of proof should lie with the accused.

None of the burden of proof should lie with the accused.

Surely you see the fundamental problem, here. This shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant. Demonstrating the previous existence and, in particular, the exculpatory nature of destroyed evidence is practically impossible.

If the state directly conspires to an unfair trial, the state’s case must be forfeit.

This senator was not powerful enough (or was actually honest enough) to not leverage the illegal “get out of jail” cards that already exist.

> OP suggested automatic not guilty for the defendant. Not fruit of the poisoned tree, where evidence can’t be used. Automatic exoneration.

What else are you going to do when potentially exculpatory evidence has been summarily wiped by the people responsible for maintaining the chain of evidence?

Force the accused to prove the wiped evidence was exculpatory?

This is beyond ridiculous:

(1) Someone in law enforcement that is in a position to meddle with the chain of evidence can already wipe incriminating evidence, which is already illegal. That would imply that the powerful already have a “get out of jail” card.

(2) There are a myriad of other places where corruption and bias can produce a “get out of jail” card, starting with who law enforcement chooses to investigate in the first place, and ending with who prosecutors decline to prosecute.

(3) Anyone in law enforcement is well-aware of just how horrific a place prison actually is, especially for someone previously in law-enforcement. Nobody is scrambling to wipe their debts to “take care of their family” while going to prison themselves.

It would be nice, however, if the paper of record didn’t call out a home appraiser, by name, in front of a national audience, with no evidence, as being a racist.

All this particular stunt shows is that two appraisers can and will appraise a home wildly differently — which anyone who has their home appraised already knew.

I’m about 25 years into my career, and I still have so much more I want to learn!

In the domains I’ve worked in, it might take six months just to get the basic idea sketched out and working. The current project has a timeline of 8 years to full completion — two years just to get to the first minimal release for a subset of our problem domain and the hardware to run it on.

It sounds like you’ve been doing unchallenging work in unchallenging domains and have acquired a much too inflated opinion of yourself in the process.

If you stopped learning after 4-5 years in the field, the barrier you hit wasn’t the lack of new things to learn. It was your own ability to learn them.

> I would argue that the idea that the human brain can hold ten years of programming information to be absolutely absurd.

You’re demonstrating the ignorant hubris of youth quite successfully.

That’s not how it is applied in practice.

The blind spot I posited and which you then summarily demonstrated.

That’s legal.

In reality, when you have companies literally setting hiring targets on the basis of protected characteristics?

It’s very unlikely that the selection process is neutral to those protected characteristics, which is not legal.

Probably, yes.

> When it comes to playing around in blender - my designs are obviously derivative of others - do I need to credit those artists?

Again, probably, but nobody is likely to care if you’re not actually selling your work.

> Even the ones that I don't remember more than a "I saw this print at a comic art show once..."

Then that’s not the prompt you should be starting with if your goal is to produce an original work.

> How original does my own work have to be before it isn't a mashup of stolen images that I half remember?

How original does it have to be before it’s not plagiarism?

Now, remove your ability for individual creativity, such that you cannot come up with an original idea. All you can do is plagiarize.

That’s the difference, here. This isn’t an AI trained to have creative thought, a genuine understanding of what it’s making, and original ideas. It’s an AI trained to regurgitate mashups of plagiarized works based on weighted correlation between the prompt and the (also plagiarized) descriptions of the works it’s regurgitating.

“Training” an art student and training an AI model are vastly different, and your equating the two is, frankly, nonsensical and absurd.

An art student isn’t a trivial weighted model capable only of mapping stolen text prompts to stolen image representations of them.

> It happens that the developers working on this problem have gotten it so that it can do its learning and creation many times faster than an art student in a gallery

It hasn’t learned anything.

It correlates stolen textual descriptions with stolen images, and then regurgitates mash-ups of the same.

This type of AI model cannot produce anything other than purely derivative work stolen from others.