It doesn't seem to be the case. As far as I can tell, the law only covers realistic digital imitations of a person's likeness (deepfakes), with an exception for parody and satire. If you appear in public that is effectively license for someone to capture your image.

A family member with no inherent moral compass or empathy, whose eyes, ears, thoughts and agency belong to teams of trained profit-seekers in a different country. I disapprove of this humanization of software.

That clarifies it, thanks

It's something Americans say.

Hold on let me find something[image: 1b188197-bd96-49bd-8fc0-0598e75468ea.avif]

Bit misleading. Tumour-associated antigens can very easily be detected very early. Problem is, these are only associated with cancer, and provide a very high rate of false positives They're better used as a stepping stone for further testing, or just seeing how advanced a cancer is That is to say, I'm assuming that's what this is about, as i didnt rwad the article. It's the first thing I thought of when I heard "cancer in bloodstream", as the other options tend to be a bit more bleak Edit: they're talking about cancer "shedding genetic material", which I hate how general they're being. Probably talking about proto oncogenes from dead tumour debris, but seems different to what I was expecting

If an industry can't survive without resorting to copyright theft then maybe it's not a viable business. Imagine the business that could exist if only they didn't have to pay copyright holders. What makes the AI industry any different or more special?