My comment only mentions me and all women. How exactly am I giving cover to men that rape? I raped nobody. The question I’m asking is what I’ve done wrong.
I don’t know what trump and racism has anything to do with this.
My comment only mentions me and all women. How exactly am I giving cover to men that rape? I raped nobody. The question I’m asking is what I’ve done wrong.
I don’t know what trump and racism has anything to do with this.
So how exactly am I complicit for some dude raping someone? Just because I have a penis? And are all women completely exempt or are all women also complicit?
So they should conquer the entirety of Asia in one turn, to get an extra 7 units per turn in order to afford their war with Europe?
That’s because it’s not the same feminist movement as it was when millennials were gen z’s age.
The last questions are what feminism used to be (what millennials liked). Nowadays, however, feminism is plagued by not-feminist people, that instead of wanting equality want women superiority. That’s the feminism gen z knows about, and the men don’t like it. That’s also the reason they answer “no” to “are you a feminist?” But they support actual feminist policies. The definition of feminism has changed.
EDIT: just for reference: my county (Spain) recently put porn under a passport with limited uses per month. Why did they do that? They claim feminism. Does that sound like feminism to you?
I was totally ready for “green energy is good graphics and oil is good mechanics”. But then the comment ended. I’m so lost
Fold it twice, still free
I poo almost daily at work. It’s almost impossible to hold it in for 8:30 continuous hours.
If someone tells me off for it, they will find out how much my productivity drops when I have to focus on holding the shit instead of doing my work.
Poo in work. Not only is it a nice break, but it also is more productive than not pooing. Win-win for everyone.
Shouldn’t being a convicted felon affect one’s candidacy?
Should the US government also pay candidates to have aesthetic surgeries? Being ugly might affect their candidacy!
We need to differentiate between those cases because they are 2 distinct cases. And they are very different.
They don’t even have the same purpose. The purpose of a human learning is: fulfill a desire to learn or acquiring a new skill that will be useful to fulfill another desire. The purpose of AI learning is: increase the value of the model so it can be sold for more.
Lemmy is not an entity that is capable of thought. And I’m not Lemmy. I’m just another person and what you are reading is my opinion.
“Publishers are bad and greedy, therefore everything that hurts them is good for society” is a childish take imo. Not everything is black and white. Copyright exists for a reason. Just removing it won’t make the world better. A law being flawed doesn’t make it worse than not existing.
Don’t need to get philosophical about what is the difference between human and AI learning.
“Consumed by AI” and “consumed by a human” are two distinct use cases that can have different terms in a license.
Media is not exactly like cheese though. With cheese, you buy it and it’s yours. Media, however, is protected by copyright. When you watch a movie, you are given a license to watch the movie.
When an AI watches a movie, it’s not really watching it, it’s doing a different action. If the license of the movie says “you can’t use this license to train AI, use the other (more expensive) license for such purposes”, then AIs have extra fees to access the content that humans don’t have to pay.
So because you don’t understand it, everything it does should be legal?
It’s not rare maths. There are trns of thousands of AI experts. And most CS graduates (millions) have a good understanding on how they work, just not the specifics of the maths.
Yeah, they’re not selling a copy, they are just selling a subscription to a copying machine loaded with the information needed to make a copy. Totally different.
I should start a business of printers and attach a USB with the PNG of a dollar bill. And of course my printers won’t have any government mandated firmware that disables printing fake money.
I’m not printing fake money! It’s my clients! Totally legal.
Yeah. A human right.
Yeah, making sandwiches also costs money! I have to pay my sandwich making employees to keep the business profitable! How do they expect me to pay for the cheese?
EDIT: also, you completely missed my point. The money making machine is the AI because the copyright owners could just use them every time it produces copyright-protected material if we decided to take that route, which is what the parent comment suggested.
If the solution is making the output non-copyrighted it fixes nothing. You can sell the pirating machine on a subscription. And it’s not like Netflix where the content ends when the subscription ends, you have already downloaded all the not-copyrighted content you wanted, and the internet would be full of non-copyrighted AI output.
Instead of selling the bee movie, you sell a bee movie maker, and a spiderman maker, and a titanic maker.
Sure, file a copyright infringement each time you manage to make an AI output copyrighted content. Just run it on a loop and it’s a money making machine. That’s fine by me.
When you copy to consume yourself it’s way different than when you copy to sell the copy for a lower price.
I’ll train my AI on just the bee movie. Then I’m going to ask it “can you make me a movie about bees”? When it spits the whole movie, I can just watch it or sell it or whatever, it was a creation of my AI, which learned just like any human would! Of course I didn’t even pay for the original copy to train my AI, it’s for learning purposes, and learning should be a basic human right!
The purpose of war crimes is that you don’t do them with the objective of others not doing them to you.
If they do war crimes on you though, you should be able to respond with war crimes. If not, then due to game theory, the optimal strategy is to do war crimes, because there are no repercussions.
Of course younger generations are more likely to believe in pseudo science, they haven’t yet learned that they are bullshit. Once they get older and have more experience with detecting bullshit, it’s popularity should decline.
They are not equivalent situations. More like:
Person A promises to kill 10 people. Person B promises to kill 20 people.
Only one of them will do it, and you choose who. If you refuse to choose, person B will do it. What do you do?