|
Salt Fish posted:They mean will their existing funds, for example a targeted retirement fund, include crypto assets, or will the crypto poo poo be a separate fund you have to specifically opt into by purchasing shares. Which I'm sure is unknown at this time because they haven't made the fund yet. If you have an employer based 401k for example then you don't have the choice to switch from Fidelity to say Vanguard without quitting first and becoming eligible to roll it over. Based on just the Bloomberg article and how NetBenefits already works with Fidelity plans, it would be part of the existing retirement fund and the customer would be able to reconfigure the investments of their fund to be in Bitcoin (up to 20% if their company allows.) So practically speaking it's exactly what zedprime describes
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:19 |
|
|
I guess my unstated point is if you want to nitpick the ideologic purity of your target date or index funds you probably already have grosser poo poo than Bitcoin riding on your retirement funds. Opening up the option to invest in weird poo poo is more specifically problematic just because of how gamblers treat their 401k.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 21:16
|
|
|
Allowing institutional investment in crypto just seems to me like speedrunning the 2008 crash but making it even worse. Subprime lending and a real estate valuation bubble were bad, but at least there were assets to work with. Like there were massive losses and a large amount of "value" evaporated, but it wasn't 100% loss. At the end of the day there were still houses and mortgages and land. With crypto there is literally nothing. Or, if you look at "stablecoins" being used as stand-ins for dollars, it could be a net negative in real world terms. It's a black hole, and if institutions start creeping up to the event horizon then everything should be shut down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
Gutcruncher posted:If Elon Musk buying it is the way we finally destroy twitter forever, then all hail my Musk overlord I absolutely agree with this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:Allowing institutional investment in crypto just seems to me like speedrunning the 2008 crash but making it even worse. Subprime lending and a real estate valuation bubble were bad, but at least there were assets to work with. Like there were massive losses and a large amount of "value" evaporated, but it wasn't 100% loss. At the end of the day there were still houses and mortgages and land. With crypto there is literally nothing. Or, if you look at "stablecoins" being used as stand-ins for dollars, it could be a net negative in real world terms. It's a black hole, and if institutions start creeping up to the event horizon then everything should be shut down. 2008 speedrun still well on pace https://twitter.com/jeannasmialek/status/1519374096160673792?s=21&t=BpR_edkXJ20Ul2ILyvlciA
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 21:38
|
|
|
Luxury Tent Carpet posted:2008 speedrun still well on pace I want to be on the timeline where Elizabeth Warren became President. There's got to be some way to open a portal or something to get off this one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
You see none of this is ponzi scheme, because it's all being done with ONE extra layer of confusion!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
It's a good thing the price of Bitcoin doesn't fluctuate too much. Otherwise, the risk of a momentary drop in value triggering an automatic default on the mortgage would be an obviously unreasonable risk. Edit Ok, well, maybe not default per se, but pretty much. Aramis fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Apr 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
If you're interesting in copyright law at all then LegalEagles new video is really interesting on the legal issues with NFTs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6aeL83z_9Y One really interesting argument he makes, its been shown only art created by a human can have copyright, so all those NFTs that are created and generated by AI might not have any copyright that can be applied at all. This might even include the Apes, while the assortment of parts were hand drawn, an algorithm put them together to create the final image.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 22:05
|
|
|
I mean besides the obvious “NFTs have no implication of ownership of what they point to” but just repeating that over and over would be boring
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
Aramis posted:It's a good thing the price of Bitcoin doesn't fluctuate too much. Otherwise, the risk of a momentary drop in value triggering an automatic default on the mortgage would be an obviously unreasonable risk. don’t worry, they’ve got all this covered! ”big brain time” posted:To account for the volatility, Milo will ask the borrower to put up more crypto or cash if the crypto-to-loan amount drops below 65%. If that figure drops below 30%, the company liquidates the assets and stores them in U.S. dollars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:Allowing institutional investment in crypto just seems to me like speedrunning the 2008 crash but making it even worse. Subprime lending and a real estate valuation bubble were bad, but at least there were assets to work with. Like there were massive losses and a large amount of "value" evaporated, but it wasn't 100% loss. At the end of the day there were still houses and mortgages and land. With crypto there is literally nothing. Or, if you look at "stablecoins" being used as stand-ins for dollars, it could be a net negative in real world terms. It's a black hole, and if institutions start creeping up to the event horizon then everything should be shut down. And it's not really possible to bail it out...you'd just be giving scammers money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:If you're interesting in copyright law at all then LegalEagles new video is really interesting on the legal issues with NFTs. Anyone can copyright images they make by any means, even deep learning and other types of software. What they can't do is list their software as the author.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 22:57
|
|
|
America posted:Anyone can copyright images they make by any means, even deep learning and other types of software. What they can't do is list their software as the author.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 23:46
|
|
|
Splicer posted:If I make a program that generates images and the total distinct images it can generate is a known finite but impractical number like 10^10 or something, can I claim copyright on all possibly generated images even if I do not explicitly generate them? It is trivial to write software that in theory eventually generates all possible images that are, say, 8-bit color and 255x255 pixels in size but I doubt the author of such software can claim a copyright on all such possible images.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
Splicer posted:If I make a program that generates images and the total distinct images it can generate is a known finite but impractical number like 10^10 or something, can I claim copyright on all possibly generated images even if I do not explicitly generate them? Personally, I don't really see the distinction between algorithmic art and say, a Jackson Pollock painting for the sake of this. The artist comes up with a process and let it run its course, producing a piece of media of which they own the copyright. The fact that they do not know exactly how the piece will come out when they set the gears into motion doesn't seem like it should matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 23:57
|
|
|
America posted:It is trivial to write software that in theory eventually generates all possible images that are, say, 8-bit color and 255x255 pixels in size but I doubt the author of such software can claim a copyright on all such possible images. Goon project, I'll start the website
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 00:09
|
|
|
America posted:It is trivial to write software that in theory eventually generates all possible images that are, say, 8-bit color and 255x255 pixels in size but I doubt the author of such software can claim a copyright on all such possible images.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 00:13
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I know, I'm wondering where the line gets drawn i don't care where the line gets drawn as long as i have the copyright, baby
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I know, I'm wondering where the line gets drawn turn on your monitor -----------------------------------------------
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 00:20
|
|
|
Aramis posted:Personally, I don't really see the distinction between algorithmic art and say, a Jackson Pollock painting for the sake of this. The artist comes up with a process and let it run its course, producing a piece of media of which they own the copyright. The fact that they do not know exactly how the piece will come out when they set the gears into motion doesn't seem like it should matter. Art created by an AI can be copyrighted. It's just that the AI itself can't own the copyright, and there has to be some element of human authorship. Exactly how much human involvement is needed is up to the copyright lawyers, but something like a Bored Ape would easily be copyrightable - humans drew all those individual pieces and accessories with the express purpose of putting them together, so it doesn't become un-copyrightable if someone just automates putting them together instead of manually assembling each one by hand. Splicer posted:If I make a program that generates images and the total distinct images it can generate is a known finite but impractical number like 10^10 or something, can I claim copyright on all possibly generated images even if I do not explicitly generate them? Of course not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 00:33
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I know, I'm wondering where the line gets drawn Remember when they cracked DVD encryption. It was illegal to post the key, 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0, but it was legal to post any algorithm that generated this key.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:Allowing institutional investment in crypto just seems to me like speedrunning the 2008 crash but making it even worse. Subprime lending and a real estate valuation bubble were bad, but at least there were assets to work with. Like there were massive losses and a large amount of "value" evaporated, but it wasn't 100% loss. At the end of the day there were still houses and mortgages and land. With crypto there is literally nothing. Or, if you look at "stablecoins" being used as stand-ins for dollars, it could be a net negative in real world terms. It's a black hole, and if institutions start creeping up to the event horizon then everything should be shut down. on the other hand the remaining value to be recouped in the 2008 crash was from taking peoples' homes away, and try as I might I simply can't force myself to care as much if some holding company siezes half the apes in town
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 00:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Art created by an AI can be copyrighted. copyright office says nope. unless "evidence on sufficient creative input or intervention by a human author in the work" exists, that thing is just a thing, not a creative work. see, if an ai made it, you didn't, and you can't claim to own the copyright or authorship of something you didn't make. the ai could but only humans, legally, can produce copyrightable works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 01:48
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Remember when they cracked DVD encryption.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 03:20
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Remember when they cracked DVD encryption. I remember people around the world wrote it on the walls as graffiti, which i found very cyberpunk
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 03:25
|
|
|
If the apes aren’t copyrightable because they are composites made by a computer, I have bad news for Hollywood
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:on the other hand the remaining value to be recouped in the 2008 crash was from taking peoples' homes away, and try as I might I simply can't force myself to care as much if some holding company siezes half the apes in town It was more complicated than that - I worked in the mortgage industry during the fallout from 2008. But in the most basic terms, in the 2008 crash $500,000 might have been reduced to $100,000 dollars, with $400,000 just ceasing to exist. With the apes, nothing exists in the first place - any real money just evaporates completely because it is tied to nothing at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 04:01
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Remember when they cracked DVD encryption. code:
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 04:19
|
|
|
chaosbreather posted:copyright office says nope. unless "evidence on sufficient creative input or intervention by a human author in the work" exists, that thing is just a thing, not a creative work. In that case, the person filing the copyright was trying to register the AI itself as the copyright owner. Because he wants to sell the AI to other people, but control the copyright for anything other people create using that AI, by arguing that the AI itself owns the copyrights (which he, as the AI's creator, would of course administer on the AI's behalf). Unsurprisingly, the Copyright Office was not sympathetic to that argument. Since the filer wanted to deprive other human users of the copyright, he argued that there was no human input to the work at all, and that it was done 100% autonomously by the AI. The Copyright Office just took him at the word, and said that if that was true, it's not copyrightable. But in reality, all "AI-generated" works necessarily have some level of human input.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 05:34
|
|
|
Is it not just a mortgage with additional security against the Very Valuable Ape Holdings as well? If so they could still take the house.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 08:32
|
|
|
If a neural network AI generates a tedious internet argument about copyright, does it have copyright on that generated argument?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 10:38
|
|
|
Hammerite posted:If a neural network AI generates a tedious internet argument about copyright, does it have copyright on that generated argument?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 10:47
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:If you're interesting in copyright law at all then LegalEagles new video is really interesting on the legal issues with NFTs. I think this is kind of a misunderstanding though tbh, and I love LegalEagle so I'm not just being contrarian. I think the piece missing from this is that the algorithm was designed, coded, and published by a human. The computer just executes the steps, it doesn't create them. The Pollack comparison is apt. In this case humans created the constituent parts AND designed the method by which they should combined. I'm not a law expert or anything so I don't know if that changes the copyrightable status, but it seems it would based on what people have posted here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 10:50
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I'm not finding this tedious I'm finding it interesting and informative Sorry, I'll update the training set.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 10:52
|
|
|
putin is a oval office posted:I think this is kind of a misunderstanding though tbh, and I love LegalEagle so I'm not just being contrarian. I think the piece missing from this is that the algorithm was designed, coded, and published by a human. The computer just executes the steps, it doesn't create them. The Pollack comparison is apt. The main point he seems to be making is its not clear cut, it hasn't been properly explored in court. And there's a hell of a lot of money on the line relying on something that no one is totally sure is settled. In the naruto case, the photographer supplied the camera, the lens, the card it was written to, he set the focal length, the fstop, the shutter speed and the iso. He also processed and published that image. That's a fairly substantial amount of human input but the court decided the image could have no copyright because the monkey pressed the button. Mega Comrade fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Apr 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 10:58
|
|
|
Durzel posted:They locked their own Github repo to stop their own devs from making unauthorised (presumably destructive) changes to it. Extremely online techbros are extremely messy bitches.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 11:03
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:The main point he seems to be making is its not clear cut, it hasn't been properly explored in court. And there's a hell of a lot of money on the line relying on something that no one is totally sure is settled. Yeah sorry, I shouldn't have replied specifically to that post I haven't watched the actual video. I guess I was more just commenting on the idea that an "algorithm" creating an image means that it was created "by a non-human". Legal definitions aside I don't think it's accurate to say that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 11:50
|
|
|
Someone's gonna train a neural net to produce images of Mickey Mouse and then we'll see just how non-copyrightable the output of an algorithm is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:19 |
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:Allowing institutional investment in crypto just seems to me like speedrunning the 2008 crash but making it even worse. Subprime lending and a real estate valuation bubble were bad, but at least there were assets to work with. Like there were massive losses and a large amount of "value" evaporated, but it wasn't 100% loss. At the end of the day there were still houses and mortgages and land. With crypto there is literally nothing. Or, if you look at "stablecoins" being used as stand-ins for dollars, it could be a net negative in real world terms. It's a black hole, and if institutions start creeping up to the event horizon then everything should be shut down. https://www.ft.com/content/83a14261-598d-4601-87fc-5dde528b33d0 Someone made this exact point. The Wilpons had to pay back all the money they got from knowingly being in a Ponzi. There was real money to get back and a real asset - the Mets. Not applicable here
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 17:45
|
|
