As I mention elsewhere in this thread, if this is really how SpaceX operates then they’re already in (ethical, if not legal) violation of their duty to protect ITAR from dissemination. ITAR documents should never just be sitting in an unsealed bin waiting for disposal. Employees shouldn’t casually be discussing ITAR around the water cooler.

Assuming everyone around you is permitted to handle ITAR is a recipe for disaster.

They decided to become an aerospace engineering firm in the US. ITAR security is part of the cost of doing business.

If the typical e.g. janitor or cafeteria worker at SpaceX has access to ITAR, as SpaceX seem to have alleged before they got caught, then their ITAR security is pure theater.

Regardless, the ITAR issue is secondary; they hire for roles that do not touch ITAR.

The fact that SpaceX deals in ITAR does not prevent them from hiring refugees for roles that do not handle ITAR.

Shoving a human artist in the middle is a liability on each front.

For context, I’m in the process of translating a work that I know for a fact is in the public domain (sole author died 90+ years ago) and I’ve still got legal questions that I’m going to have to hire a lawyer to solve.

2. Discovery. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resource...

Some variants of “theft of style” are recognized by some courts already, please see the legal literature on music copyright and the recent 7-2 SCOTUS decision on Warhol’s Prince series.

The advantages of AI that you crow over simply can’t be met by any human professional artist. A human can’t do hundreds of revisions profitably. There’s increased “sensitivity” and then there’s needing to read the client’s mind.

If you think this isn’t a death knell for human illustrators in this particular market, you’re deluding yourself.

There’s nothing legally inconsistent about passing a law saying, e.g., “ML training is not fair use”. Doing so will not even reduce existing fair use rights being exercised by actual people.

The author’s argument is that doing so is philosophically analogous to human creative processes, but those are—and I can’t underline this enough—human. And the law is not (and cannot be, should not be?) consistent in such a way.

Maybe I’m easily fooled, but if she was lip-syncing a lot I don’t think they’d leave these imperfections.

I’m not super interested in whether or not their Marxism was “authentic”, and neither is anyone who goes around, as OP did, randomly labeling things they don’t like as Marxist.

States that were far closer to Marxism, like the PRC during the Cultural Revolution, decimated their universities and dispersed their faculties over the countryside, or to labor camps.

This article is not on the same planet as that madness.

Basically everyone is unhappy about it for some reason. Some sheep farmers were told to reduce their flock by 90% or so.

But on the other hand, the pastures they’ve traditionally used to graze can no longer sustain such flocks (although this is controversial, it seems borne out by my reading). So if they continue to consider only profit motives, the pasture will end up dead and they’ll be out of work anyway.

It’s a hard problem that ought to have been solved decades ago.