Mohamed

Generated AI CP should be illegalized even if its creation did not technically harm anyone. The reason is, presumably it looks too close to real CP, so close that it: 1) normalizes consumption of CP, 2) grows a market for CP, and 3) Real CP could get off the hook by claiming it is AI.

While there are similar reasons to be against clearly not real CP (e.g. hentai), this type at least does not have problem #3. For example, there doesnt need to be an investigation into whether a picture is real or not.

Shawshank reference?

Most people use “religion” to mean “organized religion” in particular, and many people further take it to mean christianity and christianity-like religions. Religion is a word that is hard to define, but I think that although there are many edge cases, most people mostly agree on what is and what isnt a religion. My point here is that, just because they are not definable in a strict sense, does not mean the words “religion” and “faith” are “pointless”. They very much have meaning.

Many words are like that: no clear definition but they refer to real things or ideas. For example, existentialism, postmodernism, artistic styles (such as cubism or impressionism), etc. And even many terms in the sciences are like that. None of the words mathematics, physics or philosophy have clear-cut definitions. Hell, i can take this to the extreme. Even words like water or gold do not have a clear definition, in the way that lay people use them. Seawater is water even though it is made up of more than just H2O. 95% ethanol is never called water, even though 5% of it is water.

Thats the thing. Rounding up people from the street will not catch any criminals (legally speaking), by definition: if they committed a crime, and a judge deemed them guilty, they would be in jail or they would be fugitives. In either case, they are not unknowns, and authorities must’ve already knew about them. Getting people randomly off the street, you cannot, legally speaking, be catching criminals.

Weird that they said “only” half an hour. Thats a really long time

The connection also looks like a RAM stick’s. I think.

This is irrelevant because Meta should not be tried for this the same as a private individual would be.

The case for torrenting being illegal for private individuals is one or both of:

1. Downloading in of itself is stealing.
2. Uploading is giving unauthorized access to someone else who otherwise might have had a harder time finding it. Anything else, such as watching, reading, listening, learning, etc. is not illegal (or does not make sense to make illegal). The exception might be publishing. This is rare for private individuals (e.g. using pirated FL studio to make a commercial song).

For corporations, a lot change. Firstly, a corporation downloading a torrent is necessarily making unauthorized material available for some people of the company. It’s like a group of 20 friends all downloaded and uploaded to each other. Secondly, they used this copyrighted material commercially (like playing pirated music in a public night club). Both should be illegal.

However, all of this is still a distraction. The real issue is using copyrighted materials to train commercial AI. Does Meta require permission from copyright holders to make AI based on their work? The law is grey on this, and desperately needs regulations.

Just my thoughts.

Here’s a nerdy math way.

Assume that some numbers are not interesting. Let n be the smallest non-interesting number. Since n is the smallest number that’s not interesting, it is interesting.

Except for 0, 1, 2, 3.

Integers are necessarily irrational because π is transcendental and not an algebraic number.

I just want to rant.

The fact that “the judicial branch is controlled by [insert party]” is a valid and true statement to make, especially right now with the GOP, is such a bastardization of the separation of powers.

Those are all interesting questions that, like you said, generally do not admit clear answers.

For art, maybe there is a related question. Should analysis of an art piece (be it text, music, visual, etc.) also analyze the artist, or, put another way, is understanding the artist important to understanding their art? I, personally, like to say that the artist, in general, usually distracts from the art. But this is in many cases untrue.

Just thinking out loud here.

I disagree with being able to opt out of being quoted, but I agree that one should be able to opt out of having their account visible in the the Quote Post. Or maybe I am misunderstanding what a Quote Post is supposed to be? I am thinking of it as a way to share someone else’s post, but also verifying the the quote wasnt just made up.

I would think, in the US, antitrust laws would apply.

Is this different from Intel and x86 architecture? (Genuinely asking)

This is either an amazing joke, or a really stupid statement.

Check out Anna’s Archive.

Sort of clickbait. Not the most egregious example.

But yes reading that line did make me feel misled.

Sure, but the Landlord’s Game was a critique of capitalism. The $200 was supposed to be wages even in her version.

I agree that that’s useful information. I wonder though, if it is that useful, if Lemmy or the Lemmy app does that automatically?