Replying to @sem@piefed.blahaj.zone
Yes, but they don’t make news or to the top of lemmy for very long ever. Paizo is an example of a relatively established company that welcomed unionization. I’m sure there are others.

Replying to @sem@piefed.blahaj.zone
Yes, but they don’t make news or to the top of lemmy for very long ever. Paizo is an example of a relatively established company that welcomed unionization. I’m sure there are others.
Replying to @Mondez@lemdro.id
Yes, as the other commenter said, in most jurisdictions (i think China is the only exception?), generative AI outputs (this covers more than LLMs, like diffusers and other modern image generators) are not eligible for copyright. However, while a human made arrangement of the outputs gets copyright protection, in the US at least, it is a very narrow scope of protection, literally only a direct copy/paste of large swaths, and doesn’t extend to the individual AI generated components.
Replying to @DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world
That isn’t really what that article says. It says that in edge cases, remote workers (mostly in the Philippines) give additional contextual inputs to the autopilot. There are some outstanding issues with waymos, especially around getting stuck idling or infinite loops at construction sites, but really just being remotely operated is not one of them.