I would guess your use-case is a statistical anomaly. If most of the images that are saved are saved by people who like them best, which is most likely the case, enough data will erase the problem.
That just sounds like pattern recognition with extra variables. Subdividing people into groups and then analyzing them certainly doesn't sound like a task that a machine will struggle with. Why should the algorithm need to be able to see the hidden "why" when most of us creative types can't see it or define it either? It's just a function of having observed enough people of a certain type. You want to generate something that will impress the people I'm targeting? Just analyze the posts of all my followers on social media. Analyze the content that is "liked" by people in my demographic range and with close proximity to where I live. Analyze the works of creators who belong to my generation and who listen to the same music as me. Do that all nearly instantly and then offer me a selection of options picked from those various methods. I don't expect "good taste" will be hard to conjure up. I already can't tell that a lot of these octopus drawings weren't created by a talented human, and we're still early and unsophisticated in our data analytics.
Why should there be legislation? Do you want to restrict what people can do, just to force them to employ artists and writers? We could also forbid people from filling the gas tanks in their own cars, to protect the job of gas station attendant, but nobody wants to live in New Jersey.
you remember the concept of dumping, i.e., flooding a market with below cost product to drive out competing businesses? This is dumping for creatives.
editing: not that it's intentional, but these things will have the same effect; way too much product even for creative works. No one will be able to make money off the product but the tools.
We'll have to automate childcare to make that happen. Otherwise, the birthrates of the rest of the world will follow the countries with the highest standards of living on a wild plunge into unsustainability.
Have you ever seen a UBI proposal that would give people so much money that they don't have to do anything? We would never be able to come up with that much money to give out.
It's more like giving them even less money than Bill Gates gives his kids, so they still have to work, but they "don’t have to do anything for money but that they do have to do something" as you put it.
another way that word is commonly used is to indicate the person who has a responsibility; the one who is tasked with handling a situation. ie "who is responsible for cleaning up this mess?"
I take it that's what was meant by the notion that you're responsible for everything that happens to you. In this case it has nothing to do with praise or blame. Rather, it means that whether something happened to you by chance or through your own fault, the onus to clean up the mess falls upon you.
Hmm, maybe. The way I'd say it is that dealing with whatever happens to you is generally your responsibility, not that the things that happen themselves are.
("Generally", not literally always. Extreme example: If you get hit by a car and your injuries put you in a coma, then both fixing the injuries and taking action against the driver if appropriate are necessarily other people's job.)
I'm not convinced that long-term thinking isn't a strategy that can be taught. Cognitive traits may make it come naturally to some people, but I would describe it as more of a "habit" than an "ability"
If those people could move into positions that can pay better, they already would have done so, no? Eliminating their jobs through automation isn't going to get them promoted, it's going to get them fired and unemployed
> If those people could move into positions that can pay better, they already would have done so, no?
No, because those positions pay the same as what they're currently getting, but not how much they would pay with a higher minimum wage. The context is that a person's current position is unprofitable under a higher minimum wage, but other positions would not be, thus their wage ends up boosted even if it means getting a new position.
Furthermore, targeted automation has tended to increase employment in other industries, historically.
Is that supposed to be a reasonable question? Why isn't anyone smart enough to invent a battery with several orders of magnitude better storage capacity than the current ones?
This is not a good analogy since fiat currencies already offer that. It turned computing-resources-backed currencies aren't the best alternative after all.
Anyone at any time can see the wallet address that created the NFT. It's trivial for any author or creator to publish their wallet address; it's simply a short hash value. That's the "verification outside of the blockchain" that you seem to think is such a stumbling point. I would suggest thinking more on the subject if it isn't obvious to you that this has value.
> It's trivial for any author or creator to publish their wallet address; it's simply a short hash value.
It's also trivial for any author to change that message to a new hash so they can sell their NFT's again. Or the service where that message was posted might disappear, so you can no longer view the message and therefore nobody knows that the NFT is "authentic". So you basically get the same problem as any central authority of trust. In this case you trust the message board the author posts on, and you trust the author, and you have to also trust the service hosting whatever art the NFT points to. If you trust those then why not just trust a regular exchange instead?
