They also bought Youtube and made it worse and bought Orkut and killed it.

wtf why this comment have 7 downvotes

I don’t think people’s right to generate whatever image they want to jerk off to is fundamental or more important than avoiding “AI” scams and CSAM generation. There are other ways to jerk off: there’s plenty of real people porn online and also lots, lots, lots of hentai, for literally every taste. “AI” porn only has two particularities that are not satisfied by these two options, one is to generate the scene you want, and for the very remote possibility that what you have imagined has never been produced before, you can pay an artist to To do so, another is Deep Fake porn, which should be a crime, it doesn’t matter if you’re not going to publish the image.

That’s something to appreciate about Lemmy. People can destroy you while you hold a position they think is wrong, but as soon as you change your mind they are friendly.

EDIT: usually

No, and that’s why I don’t use Google or anything that isn’t encrypted and sends any data that I consider private to some datacenter. And even when I know the data is encrypted, I am careful, as anyone should be, with data leaving your computer and going to someone else’s.

“AI” is not the same thing. Why would I want my prompt to be private if I don’t want to use the result in some malicious way, be it generating CSAM or using it to cheat someone to write an article, or to generate a Deep Fake video of someone for an internet scam?

I don’t see a problem with that, I think that this information should be public, both prompt and result, because:

• a. The “AIs” companies already know that, why shouldn’t anyone else?
• b. They use public information to train their models, thus their results should also be public.
• c. This would be the ultimate way to know that something was “AI” generated.

This is a very different subject from giving acess for your DMs. The only ones who benefit from this information not being publicly available are those who use “AI” for malicious purposes, while everyone benefits from privacy of correspondence.

If they can plant AI CSAM in my computer they can also plant “real” CSAM in my computer. Your point doesn’t make any sense.

I agree that is a extreme example. That’s precisely why I started with keyboard shortcuts. I don’t think anyone is required to know LaTeX and Markdown, but it seems to me that fewer and fewer younger people know them. If there are fewer people who know the basics, there are proportionally fewer people who know the advanced ones.

In my country, this generational divide doesn’t make much sense. But comparing those born in the 90s and early 2000s with those born from the late 2000s onwards, there is a fundamental difference: there was, even in the public education system, a variety of computer courses available to many people. With the arrival and hegemony of the app model, which is designed with the idea that it is intuitive and does not require anyone to be taught how to use it, computer courses have been disappearing. As a result, millions of young people use computers daily and have no knowledge of simple concepts such as shortcuts Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V, let alone advanced features of Office suites, not to mention that they have no idea what LATEX and Markdown are.

Untrue, I was born in 2003 and torrenting go brrrrrrrrrrrr

And when you say collective action is the only way, which, if I am not mistaken is a core authleft belief.

It’s a core Marxist observation, based in history. Every system that has ever fallen has fallen because of the organized action of a class or a set of classes, not necessarily in a party, since the very notion of a party is extremely recent, but organization in some form. It’s a process that is always violent, usually doesn’t happen all at once and may not be definitive, but that’s how things have happened so far. There’s no evidence that it will happen the way you think it will, but honestly, good luck with that. It would be great if we could move to a fairer system without all the burden of having to organize and having to respond to reactionary violence in the same level.

I do take special exception with your notion that these egregors come into being out of conscious and renewed informed consent.

I don’t know exactly what in my answer led you to the conclusion that I think so, but that’s not the case. In my opinion, these “egregors”, which I call ideologies, arise according to the need that material conditions require. As material conditions change, mainly because of the sophistication of the means of production, new ideologies emerge from the new socioeconomic conditions produced by this change.

Every aspect of human society exists because we, as a society, believe in them, including society itself. The very tools we use to measure the world beyond man are human fabrications. However, the maintenance of a social model does not necessarily depend on all its members believing in or agreeing with it, only on continuing to work for it. Cultural, social, and physical constraints exist and are very real. For example, it was common a few years ago in the “Free Palestine” online community to say that Israel is not real, but this statement has never stopped any of Israel’s oppressive actions from happening. Understanding that all systems are fabricated is a fundamental step towards the possibility of replacing them with better systems, but for this to happen, realization needs to evolve into organized action: the only tool capable of changing the world. And yes, it is only possible to replace one system with another, and it is not possible to live without a system, because what makes us human is precisely this characteristic: we created the social system to overcome the evolutionary system.

And to rationalize the world we live in, we create rules to legitimize our other creations. We can use any factors to generate these rules, but to avoid chaos, we agree, in materialism, to use historical, cultural, and economic factors to justify the control of a territory by a nation state. Considering these factors, in a comparative sense, the control of the United States over any of its constituent territories is much more illegitimate than the control of Tibet by China. Does this mean that we should dismember the United States and return its territories to their original owners? No, it means that someone who believes that China should grant independence to Tibet should also advocate for the dismemberment of the United States. Since in this case the decision came from the United States government, which, I imagine, has no intention whatsoever of dismembering the United States, we can conclude that the only motivation for this is to antagonize China, and it does not stem from a concern for the right of peoples to self-determination.

In fact there are NO countries in the world immune to the “you displaced a previous civilization” argument. They’ve all done it.

Yet, some did it much more recently than others, and many of the peoples they stole from still exist and are still being exploited (not China-Tibet case). At the very least, one would expect countries not to go around questioning the legitimacy of other countries’ territories when their own have no legitimacy at all.

CN lawmakers pass bill that questions US’s claims over Hawaii

Imagine if that was the headline…

The problem is that any claim by the United States to any territory is infinitely more absurd than China’s claim to Tibet. I used Hawaii as an example, but it could be Puerto Rico, Alaska, Texas, California, New Mexico, all the way to the entire country that has been despoiled of its indigenous population.

Dude nobody is praising North Koreans and Chinese for their war of aggression and mass murder.

I wasn’t talking about North Korea and Chinese actions, I was talking about US’s actions. This astronomical quantity of bombs were deployed by USA’s air force. And you are praising this war when you say it was “nice”.

Also please stop your implied racism against South Koreans by undervaluing their freedom.

Here you are just being absurd. Who’s being racist? Who values ​​the self-determination of a people? Who condemns the direct interference of a foreign nation in a civil war or who approves it? China only sent soldiers to the war when the “UN army” had already occupied almost the entire peninsula. And yes, I value life over freedom: while there is life, there is hope of achieving freedom, without life, there is no possibility of being free.

Not true at all with the rest.

Yes it’s true, at every one of this wars the media and government talked endlessly about how each of these countries was ruled by a terrible dictator and it was almost the America’s divine duty to intervene. The Iraq war in particular was full of videos of Bush talking about how inhuman Saddam was and how the “weapons of mass destruction” (which were not real) in his hands would cause a terrible tragedy. In the end, the only tragedies were the proxy war between Iraq and Iran, led by the United States when they were friends with Saddam, and the Iraq war.

There is a measurable scale for how good a democracy is. Starting with the obvious “Is there freedom of the press?” and going to stuff like: Is every vote weighed the same? Is it easy to vote?

This scale is ridiculous and does not reflect the real meaning of democracy.

Not democracy because votes are grouped by states?

Not because the votes are grouped by state, but because:

• the division of delegates is not strictly proportional to the population of the states.
• the delegates can vote regardless of the wishes of their voters.
• therefore, it is perfectly possible, as has happened a few times, that the winner of the election is not the candidate who received the most votes from the population, but rather the one who managed to gather the most delegates.

In addition, since it is impossible to elect (to the presidency) someone who does not belong to one of the two parties, one would expect, at the very least, that the primaries would be democratic. They are not. Superdelegates are not elected.

How idiotic can you get?

Here you are, being rude again, for no reason at all. Even Jesus Christ lost his temper, and I am a far inferior person to him. I have no intention of continuing to argue with someone so uncivilized.

No. That that is almost never the US justification for war.

This has been used as at least a minor motive in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, to ​​name a few. The consequences are there to be seen.

But yes, saving South Korea from being ruled by the North Korean dictator was a great thing.

At least 3 million of people died in that war, mostly civilians, mostly targeted by USA’s bombs (six times more bombs than during the entire Pacific War in a much, much smaller area). No matter what your opinion of the North Korean regime, to praise this war is to praise mass murder.

So that is the same as “fascism”.

Not “same” as fascism, but not democracy at all.

Because you are not comparing it with the absence of democracy, You are comparing it with a perfect democracy. The absence of a perfect democracy is not a “joke”, it is the difference between fascism and non-fascism.

What is democracy? It is the political system where the people govern, directly or indirectly. There is no such thing as “incomplete democracy”: either the people govern, or the people do not govern. Absence of democracy means no democracy at all. And for me “no democracy” it is as bad as fascism.

regime that makes US surveillance seem like a walk in the park

There isn’t such a thing as “good surveillance”, or “better surveillance”, if you do surveillance you can’t pretend a position of moral superiority to others who do the same, even if you still don’t chase people who say certain things online, it’s on the horizon. Thanks to Snowden sacrifice we know some of the USA government surveillance. He didn’t “back down at the first sign of trouble”, what he did made him lose the life he had, I’d like to see you in his position.

I don’t care about the messenger, I care about the message, if it’s true, it doesn’t matter who’s saying it. If Putin says the sky is blue, it won’t turn green. Can Snowden have another intention when he talks about what Adobe is doing? Maybe, I personally doubt it. The point is: this is irrelevant. This does not change the core of what Adobe is doing in any way, nor does it make what it is saying a lie. Just as Stallman defending a member of Epstein’s list does not make false anything that he has said about big corporations, privacy and freedom.

My logic is survival, you know, a human instinct. And nothing you said about Snowden makes his statement wrong.