FaceDeer

Yeah, he had some good points before the sudden leap to genocide.

Does that mean that a country that imports 100% of the oil it burns should be counted as having no emissions?

What did I say that implied that? I’m pointing out a contradiction in kilgore’s comment, I’m not adding anything of my own here.

Their distribution of books is completely legal.

Corporations just have more money to warp the laws in their favour.

You just contradicted yourself in two sentences.

But I think the law is pretty clear, and a precedent calling their use case fair use would be mind blowing. You need new, much more common sense IP legislation that redefines consumer rights in a digital world.

Indeed. I’m a big supporter of IA’s mission, and I’m a big supporter of piracy (copyright has gone insane over the years), but this outcome was obvious from the moment IA did this and it was a mistake for them to fight this fight. They should focus on preservation. Let the EFF handle the lawsuits, and let Library Genesis handle the illegal distribution of books. Everyone focus on what they’re best at.

They’re appealing the decision so there’s still opportunity for IA to throw good money after bad on this.

But when you die and an AI company contacts all your grieving friends and family to offer them access to an AI based on you (for a low, low fee!)

You can stop right there, you’re just imagining a scenario that suits your prejudices. Of all the applications for AI that I can imagine that would be better served by a model that is entirely under my control this would be the top of the list.

With that out of the way the rest of your rhetorical questions are moot.

Even with that, being absolutist about this sort of thing is wrong. People undergoing surgery have spent time on heart/lung machines that breathe for them. People sometimes fast for good reasons, or get IV fluids or nutrients provided to them. You don’t see protestors outside of hospitals decrying how humans aren’t meant to be kept alive with such things, though, at least not in most cases (as always there are exceptions, the Terri Schiavo case for example).

If I want to create an AI substitute for myself it is not anyone’s right to tell me I can’t because they don’t think I was meant to do that.

I don’t believe humans are “meant” to do anything. We are a result of evolution, not intentional design. So I believe humans should do whatever they personally want to do in a situation like this.

If you have a loved one who does this and you don’t feel comfortable interacting with their AI version, then don’t interact with their AI version. That’s on you. But don’t belittle them for having preferences different from your own. Different people want different things and deal with death in different ways.

If you don’t want to do it then don’t do it. Can we stop trying to tell everyone else they have to have the same values as you?

The amount of sociopathy required to fraudulently derail Alzheimers research worldwide for the sake of your own personal career is mind-boggling. If this is truly what happened here my anger at this individual will be… significant.

If their goal is to prevent AI trainers from scraping their art then an open federated platform is the opposite of what they want.

It also has an expensive back end and no plans for any kind of monetization, so it’s dead in the water from that side too. The moment they’re successful they’re broke.

If they feel less need to add proper alt-text because peoples’ browsers are doing a better job anyway, I don’t see why that’s a problem. The end result is better alt text.

I would expect it’d be not too hard to expand the context fed into the AI from just the pixels to including adjacent text as well. Multimodal AIs can accept both kinds of input. Might as well start with the basics though.

The Fediverse doesn’t have any defenses against AI impersonators though, aside from irrelevance. If it gets big the same incentives will come into play.

As I said, someone did complain about the caps.

I leave the little ring on and nobody’s complained yet. I was just told to remove the caps one time, so I kept on throwing those out since then.

Very odd. Where I live you’re not supposed to return the bottles with the cap, they’re different plastics and the recyclers don’t want the caps. You’re supposed to throw the caps away in the regular trash.

Sure, but having a smoking section in Tim Hortons isn’t going to change that. I’d think it’d make it more likely for smokers to throw their butts out in a manner that can be properly disposed of, rather than making them smoke outside.

Note that I’m not advocating smoking or smoking sections. Smoking is awful on many levels and I’d rather see it go away entirely. I’m just pointing out that it’s ridiculous to say having a smoking section in Tim Hortons is going to have a significant impact on the environment. Jumping to “this is going to fuck the planet” is crying wolf, it’s going to result in people either getting sick of environmentalism or more subtly problematic it’ll result in people thinking they’re making a difference when they’re not. The plastic straw ban, for example. Plastic straws were never a major contributor to ocean plastic waste. By far the largest contributor to ocean plastic waste is discarded fishing equipment, but I don’t see any campaigning to reduce seafood consumption. People banned straws instead and then thought they’d accomplished something.