Adam Smith

This guy is so fucking economically illiterate and every time he tweets it reminds me that the left has popular figures just as dangerously incompetent as the right

@sflorimm Mistral. and its only 15 months behind those models

USA has ChatGPT USA has Grok USA has Claude USA has Gemini USA has Llama USA has Copilot China has DeepSeek China has Qwen China has Ernie China has GLM China has Kimi China has MiniMax Europe has?

@notadampaul @sarobertsonca he wants to run for prime minister

@sarobertsonca like I don't totally disagree with him but why is the Premier of Manitoba talking about this lol

Wab Kinew: “No American child from the blue collar or the middle class should have to die in Iran. Let the Epstein class fight the Epstein war.”

@Protomario People fail to realize that Blue could have found a bunch of moon stones in mount moon and only left a few for Red.

At this point In the game Blue could have Starter Pidgey/Pidgeotto Rattata/line Nidoran line Mankey line Spearow line Weedle/Caterpie line Pikachu Magikarp line Jigglypuff line Clefairy line Zubat line Paras line Bellsprout/Weepingbell Oddish/Gloom Abra/Kadabra Diglett line 40

@Awk20000 didnt ludwig cover for hasan electrocuting his dog

Ludwig on xQc off stream vs on stream “Who xQc is on stream is like a really brash person who can talk like off cuff incredibly negative abt ppl..ppl he knows in real life, like he says actually some mean mean sh*t..then u meet him in real life, and he treats the person..as a different person and really sweet..I think his brain is so corrupt he views it all as content”

Trump and Oracle banned the word "Epstein" on US TikTok after takeover last weekend.

Homeless dude 👏👏👏

@Disinfo_Tracker Ethan didn't ask about Bin Laden visiting a mosque. He asked how people would react if a mosque celebrated Bin Laden after 9/11. You swapped celebrating for visiting which changes the entire point.

Hasan Piker said that Netanyahu receiving a warm welcome at an American synagogue fuels antisemitism. Ethan Klein disagrees. He asks... Would you say that Bin Laden visiting an American mosque after 9/11 would fuel Islamophobia? Yes. Of course it would. This man is so dumb.

@__Substance__ @hutchinson @PiscoLitty @kuihman ethan is clearly petty. but if they didnt explicitly offer their stream as a market substitute they wouldn't be in this position. if someone did something that made it really easy for me to sue them lots of money. then that would motivate me to sue them.

Hutch (@hutchinson), as expected, when debating Pisco (@PiscoLitty) over the Klein suit, made the BASELESS CLAIM that Ethan could have “multiple motives for filing suit” only for Pisco to hit back with “if by possible you mean plausible, then no” Kuihman (@kuihman) reacts:

@PiscoLitty Do you think if the allegation about the illicit scraper that bypassed security is true. Would that make any meaningful difference / would plaintiffs have a stronger hand than usual?

Haha will review. I know once again my opinion will likely win me no friends but my starting inclination is that these AI companies in general have the better of the fair use arguments 😬😬😬. Not an anti-Ethan thing at all we just need new IP laws/frameworks for this new tech.

@PiscoLitty ...and that makes the precedent narrow because it would only be used against react content where the creator objectively defines their own work as a commercial substitute. 2/2g

@PiscoLitty I am not using AI. I agree Factor 1 is objective. Im saying explicit marketing instructions constitute Objective Evidence of the work's Purpose > That's why it moves the issue from internal intent to external function > ...1/2g?

One last point on Ethan copyright lawsuit. If his complaint against Denims goes the distance (SJ or trial), he will now be in a predictable and awkward situation: fighting to establish a fair use precedent that could chill the react community significantly. If he is true to his principles, he should direct his attorneys to limit their argument to “intentional stated malice” as the sole and exclusive factor making the usage not fair. Otherwise his lawsuit is not at all different in terms of the risk of establishing “devastating precedent” for the react community than what Sony or Disney would undertake. Given Ethan’s concern regarding the existential risk to the react community cited in his video, he really should voluntarily limit the scope of his argument. What are the odds this happens?

@PiscoLitty Does that not mean the Court accepted there was a new aesthetic meaning but ruled it did not save the work because the commercial purpose was substitutive? 2/2g

@PiscoLitty What am I missing? "Even though Orange Prince adds new expression to Goldsmith’s photograph...in the context of the challenged use, the first fair use factor still favors Goldsmith." supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf… 1/2g

@PiscoLitty The Court accepted Warhol added new aesthetic meaning but ruled against him because the commercial purpose (magazine licensing) was identical no? That is the distinction. Aesthetic difference failed to override Commercial identity.

@AdamQJSmith That’s just nonsense not a distinction made by SCOTUS hahaha. Ai bot. Voice up lemme know if you’re interested in actually having the convo. Thanks.

@PiscoLitty ...time to reply, but I am not good at live debate. I think I established a difference between Motive and Conduct and am only still responding because I'm not convinced by your Warhol point (Aesthetic vs Commercial). 2/2e

@PiscoLitty There is no contradiction. Subjective Intent (Motive) becomes Objective Evidence (Conduct) when you verbalize it as a commercial directive. Not being able to distinguish between internal thoughts and external marketing is the issue here. I appreciate you taking the... 1/2e

@PiscoLitty Denims offered a commercial directive not an artistic interpretation. Warhol requires us to look at the Purpose of the Use. Denims admitted her purpose was substitution. You are citing the rejection of artistic interpretation to argue we must ignore commercial reality. 2/2e

@PiscoLitty This is conflating Aesthetic Meaning with Commercial Function. The District Court's reliance on artistic interpretations (vulnerable vs. iconic) was rejected. That is criticism not marketing. The Court ruled against Warhol because the commercial purpose was identical 1/2e

@PiscoLitty Her Subjective Intent (to boycott) resulted in Objective Conduct (creating a market substitute). Her statement is the evidence that bridges them. It proves the Character of the Use (Factor 1) was commercial substitution. Denims admitted the purpose and that kills the defense 2/2e

@PiscoLitty You are operating on pre-2023 case law. The central holding of Warhol is that Factor 1 (Purpose) turns on whether the use shares the same commercial purpose as the original. SC explicitly connected Factor 1 to commercial substitution. And there is no contradiction... 1/2e