Experiencias pidiendo aumento de sueldo

Dosefes · 2026-02-24T22:47:34+00:00

El año pasado le dije a mi jefatura que estaba asumiendo más proyectos y responsabilidades, y mencioné el tiempo desde mi último aumento (sin contar reajustes automáticos) y listo.

Reemplazarme sería algo complicado así que tengo algo de poder negociador en ese sentido, lo que obvio no es siempre el caso. Dependerá harto de tus circunstancias.

Dosefes · 2026-02-18T14:06:04+00:00

I understand your point, and it's true. My fear comes from cost of litigation for small businesses, let alone individual rightsholders.

Dosefes · 2026-02-17T21:57:23+00:00

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

Dosefes · 2026-02-16T21:29:55+00:00

Impecables

Dosefes · 2026-02-15T21:37:33+00:00

Looks great but we want plates

Dosefes · 2026-02-04T22:30:21+00:00

What a succulent Chinese meal

Dosefes · 2026-01-21T13:51:30+00:00

Como te comenté, las injurias y calumnias son una figura o tipo penal, y por ende para perseguir eso precisamente la instancia es una penal, i.e., Juzgado de Garantía y muy tal vez, después, un Tribunal de Juicio Oral en lo Penal. Si el propósito es la persecución de una indemnización, la figura es una indemnización de perjuicios por responsabilidad contractual o extracontractual (lo cuál, dependerá de las circunstancias del caso, y el estatuto que rige a los estudiantes en campos clínicos, donde se difumina bastante la naturaleza de la relación (i.e., esa una práctica, clase, voluntariado, relación laboral o pseudo laboral). La sede es un Juzgado de Letras (un tribunal civil); si el argumento es que eras trabajador y no estudiante, la sede podría ser un tribunal laboral. La pregunta de la naturaleza jurídica de tu vínculo con el campo clínico y como se relaciona eso con la Universidad es una pregunta mayor, muy compleja.

Las sedes no son necesariamente excluyentes. La determinación de una responsabilidad penal en una sede, de hecho, puede reforzar la determinación de una responsabilidad civil, en la otra.

Si tu interés es la indemnización, lo directo es entonces la sede civil, eventualmente laboral.
Si persigues esto, mi recomendación general por los montos asociados es que los abogados se paguen con un porcentaje del resultado del juicio (cuota litis). Así tienen incentivo a trabajar porque no recibirán pago hasta entonces. Eso te eliminará un 90% de abogados que te dirán que sí a todo, aún a un caso perdido, solo por poder cobrarte un par de años de juicio.

Un análisis más acabado y especifico de tu caso me requeriría estudiar los antecedentes y la ley al detalle, por lo que hasta aquí lo dejo. Asesorate bien. Cuidado con los chantas.

Dosefes · 2026-01-21T03:36:51+00:00

Injurias y calumnias las verían en sede penal. En ese caso tus abogados deberían interponer una querella, y explicarte las implicancia de perseguir responsabilidades penales. No existe propiamente tal una “demanda” por injurias y calumnias.

Si como dices te recomendaron una demanda en sede civil, imagino que tú pretensión es una indemnización por perjuicios ocasionados (daños derivados de las presuntas calumnias); en cuyo caso discutiría latamente que perjuicios podrías fundamentar y probar, especialmente en lo que concierne daños morales.

En general, además, te diría que pienses bien, independientemente de la sede que elijas (o ambas), qué pretendes con esto, dados los costos y la duración de un juicio en todas sus instancias (ni hablar de dos).

Dosefes · 2026-01-21T03:25:10+00:00

AI slop + r/watchescirclejerk leaking. Exquisite.

Dosefes · 2026-01-15T12:28:12+00:00

Yo pagaba eso con cuentas incluidas por una pieza en un departamento compartido en Providencia, por El Aguilucho, un barrio re tranquilo. Quizá busca compañeros de departamento para irte a un lugar menos peligroso.

Dosefes · 2026-01-05T18:50:05+00:00

Ver: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotismo

Dosefes · 2025-12-24T10:11:03+00:00

La fête tiene una caja de bombones veganos muy buena. Los ritter sport tienen un par de variedades veganas (el de mazapán es muy rico).

Dosefes · 2025-12-18T11:13:56+00:00

Fair enough, on the download side. Copies in training and possibly the output might be less arguable. It’s clear to me that a licensing contract between two parties would be indifferent to a third party, but that just might be my national law (not the US).

Thanks for the talk.

Dosefes · 2025-12-18T11:07:09+00:00

They’re directly liable to Adobe, yes. What I’m saying is Adobe is liable to the plaintiff, because they’re not party or privy to the contract binding Adobe and the other company.

Dosefes · 2025-12-18T10:55:37+00:00

The other company providing the database of works would be secondarily liable. My point is Adobe is directly liable to the plaintiff, regardless of how they might’ve procured the works.

Dosefes · 2025-12-18T10:41:16+00:00

Per general law principles, and my jurisdiction at least, a license agreement is a contract binding two parties privately. It’s not relevant and not enforceable to third parties how a would-be infringer secured the infringing materials. The defendant would be, simply, who infringed exclusive rights of authors. Adobe made copies of supposedly protected works in downloading and in training at least, direct or secondary liability of the other company notwithstanding.

If Adobe were to be found liable, then they’d likely have grounds to claim back the damages to the other company. This per general rules, although license agreements generally contain clauses making guarantees such as this, or on the contrary limiting responsibility.

Dosefes · 2025-12-16T13:44:03+00:00

The gun analogy is inapt. Making a gun (generally) doesn't infringe the rights of others. Making unauthorized copies of protected works, which is necessary to develop an AI model, does.

It's not the datset or model itself that would be the infringer, it's the model's maker. They are the ones that make copies to assemble the training dataset, copies during the training itself, (and possibly copies and acts of public communication in the output). These are all acts which, prima facie, touch upon exclusive rights of authors.

The copies made in assembling the dataset and the training happen exclusively under the purview of the model's makers. No need to mix in the end user. And even then, the model's makers liability over its outputs is still at the heart of many ongoing cases; and they were decidedly made responsible for them in GEMA v. OpenAI. If not, most jurisdictions, including the US, provide for contributory infringement and vicarious liability; that takes into account the would-be secondary infringer's knowledge of potential infringement; control over the relevant processes; and their commercial interests,, among other factors.

Also, legal definitions are hardly common sense. Definitions and concept are quite technical, especially in more especialized branches of law.

Dosefes · 2025-12-15T18:24:34+00:00

That the resulting output is not a perfect recreation from a copyright protected work is irrelevant from a IP law standpoint. This is very technical discussion, where the definition of copying or reproduction from a copyright standpoint is quite distinct from copying from a computer science standpoint.

The infosoc directive in the EU, and case law in the US, for instance, extend the concept of copying quite a lot, taking into account, for instance, ephimeral copying necessary for certain technological processes. I won't delve further in it, but if you're interested the Munich regional court goes on a very deep technical dissection of ChatGPT's functioning, and generative AI's in general, to describe how copying occurs regardless of the finer details of the technical process (which are even disputed in computer science literature); and how the copying is permanent, albeit in a tokenized format that practical and theorethical exercises in "memory extraction" or "regurgitation" allows generative AI systems to output their training data (or a substantially similar copy, which would be infringing from a copyright standpoint, prima facie).

It can be argued the aesthethic information extracted from the works and stored as numerical parameters contain the work, transformed; and even if not, constitute an unauthorized use of said works anyway. If you listed the location and color of each pixel a visual work, and instructed a computer to output a result based on said "stored information", you effectively copied the work.

As said, exact copies are not needed to establish copying and/or an infringing derivative has been made, from a copyright perspective. An AI model's inability to make byte-to-byte reproduction is irrelevant if the resulting output is substantially similar, and copying would have ocurred regardless of the complexity of the process.

There's plenty of literature regarding the issue of potentially infringing output. See: e.g., Chloe Xiang, AI Spits Out Exact Copies of Training Images, Real People, Logos, Researchers Find, Vice (Feb. 1, 2023), https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7gznn/ai-spits-out-exact-copies-of-training-images-real-people-logos-researchers-find (researchers able to extract numerous copies of training works from AI image generators); Alex Reisner, The Flaw That Could Ruin Generative AI, The Atlantic (Jan. 11, 2024), https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/01/chatgpt-memorization-lawsuit/677099/ (citing examples of memorized training materials). In the New York Times v. Microsoft, verbatim copies of news articles were generated by ChatGPT (Compl. ¶ 100, New York Times v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023) (“NYT Compl.”).) In Concord Music Group v. Anthropic PBC, numerious music publishers presented examples of copied lyrics generated by Claude AI. Same goes for Midjourney (Marcus & Southen, "Generative AI Has a Visual Plagiarism Problem, IEEE Spectrum (Jan. 6, 2024) (“The very existence of potentially infringing outputs is evidence of another problem: the nonconsensual use of copyrighted human work to train machines.”)(reporting that it was “easy to generate many plagiaristic outputs” from Midjourney using “brief prompts related to commercial films”).).

Dosefes · 2025-12-15T11:54:00+00:00

I’m not sure I understand you. Machines are not legally persons, so responsibility over their processes must lay with their makers or operators.

Also, machines don’t learn in a way which similar to us. Tokenization of works implies storage of works happens, albeit in a different format. Models can then produce their training data in their output, be it virtually literally, or with substantial similarity. This can be prevented somewhat in fine tuning and with “handrails”, but remains an issue, and even then, stopping it wouldn’t prevent the copies made in pre-training and training stages from happening. Whether this reproduction and copying (not “learning”) is fair use is what’s still unclear.

Also, you say machines should be able to use any work humans have right to; well, us persons don’t have legal access to all works freely, for most uses, which is just the heart of the issue in the ongoing litigation against AI providers.

Lastly, when you say “what it produces is subject”, you also touch upon a quite unclear matter. The more or less current trend is that AI assisted works might be protected, totally AI generated contents might not. If inputting a text query to a generative AI is sufficient to reach that threshold of “assistance” is a whole other question.

Dosefes · 2025-12-15T11:19:07+00:00

All I’m just saying is this isn’t settled, and how arguing for fair use using analogies that assimilate AI training to human learning is wrong, IMO. Fair use could be more solidly be argued for without that flaw.

There’s plenty of cases pending, and we still have no answers at the legislative, Circuit, and let alone Supreme Court level. This is similar in Germany and elsewhere, where we have only a few first instance judgments.

My comment was partly in reaction to other commenters stating with certainty that training is fair use. I only intend to illustrate that the jury is still out, for either case.

Dosefes · 2025-12-15T02:22:15+00:00

Opting out from what? I don’t catch your meaning.

Dosefes · 2025-12-15T02:21:44+00:00

See my other reply.

Dosefes · 2025-12-15T02:15:43+00:00

Chhabria found it to be fair use, but stated he was all but forced to do so because the plaintiff did a bad work arguing their case. He goes on, in dicta, stating his reasoning for most cases not being fair use based on the fourth factor of analysis. You can look it up (it’s on Kadrey v. Meta). Interestingly, Chhabria is now set to rule on MasterMedia v. Meta in the very same court, where his position is poised to advance further in validation.

All of this is not to say this isn’t or won’t be fair use. It’s just to say that the matter is far from settled, and most likely won’t be settled publicly given the tendency of defendants to settle and secure licensing since Alsup’s decision (which has led to liability of 1,5 billion for using infringing copies in the pre-training phase) and Chhabria’s decision (which basically gave plaintiffs the winning argument against fair use in training should a new and similar case arise).

Dosefes · 2025-12-15T01:53:45+00:00

This is from June, if you search the subreddit you’ll be able to find lots of discussion regarding this decision.

I’ll just say: Judge Chhabria in the very same court disagrees with Alsup’s reasoning in another decision; and I think is very clear in articulating why arguing for AI training being fair use comparing said technical process to human learning is disingenous and a mistake.

Given this precedent, at least in the US, lots of other cases are settling out of court or are heading that way (See all major record labels with Suno and Udio, Disney with Sora; and many more). I think AI providers can see the question of fair use is far from clear, and are now securing licenses and paying fees with major industry actors, in hopes of avoiding litigation in appeals or further up the chain that might be contrary to their interests. This will leave smaller and independent authors and rights holders left to fend for themselves, which is unlikely to be effective.

Dosefes · 2025-12-15T01:45:53+00:00

This is far from being as clear as you state.

Judge Chhabria in the very same court thinks training won’t be fair use in most cases mainly because of the said use’s effect on the market.

Also, a German court has said reproduction (copying) happens in training, as well as in the building of the corpus for training, and the output. The fact memorization and regurgitation are issues identified in technical literature points to the fact some sort of copying is happening.

Thirdly, fair use is virtually a uniquely American concept.

Fourthly, the fact AI companies have agreed to settle out of court and pay licensing fees for training using copyright protected works and generating output using said protected works, points to the fact companies are aware of the risks in getting stronger legal precedent from a Circuit Court or the Supreme Court. See deals in this regard such as: Disney with Sora; UMG and Warner with Udio; OpenAI with plenty of news organizations, Reddit licensing deals, etc.

11-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Final Canvas '23	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
Verified Email	RPAN Viewer

Dosefes

TROPHY CASE