they’re doing it very knowingly… they wrote an entire nearly 1000 page fucking document detailing exactly what they’re doing in excruciating detail.

the fascists == idiots trope needs to go bc that’s exactly what makes them dangerous. lots of these fuckers are quite intelligent and conniving. you should be weary.

haha lmfao yeah i’m kind of super busy in the mornings - i did misread you in passing, sorry. appreciate the heads up friend

often in cases like this there is no real personal responsibility involved, and your disdain stems from a lack of empathy.

nicotine is a strongly addictive chemical and lots of users have active addictions. in many locales and markets disposable vapes are increasingly becoming the cheapest or only way to scratch that itch, in addition to americans being propagandized for years into believing that vaping in general is somehow a healthier way to deal with your nicotine addiction. either way vaping is heavily pushed on nicotine addicts in america to such a point that i genuinely am not so certain personal responsibility factors into the equation anymore. it’s very similar to opium in china during the century of humiliation or the war on drugs or something - just a clearly systemic problem spurred by greedy people against the poor that is justified to other poor people through fallacious moral reasoning.

the guy you mentioned… knows the obvious point that buying disposables is contrarian to his opinion. that doesn’t invalidate his beliefs. he’s an addict, not necessarily a hypocrite. instead of being crabs in a bucket and tearing down the people who already agree with you why don’t you try and point people’s anger rightfully towards big tobacco companies who managed to swindle the world into picking up the nasty habit again in the name of avarice. those people hurt you, me, and the guy in your story. they deserve you being mad at them, not this rando you mention.

I mean, it’s not misfortune it’s an intentional act of deception; kind of like naming yourself national socialists while being racist brownshirts… it’s an intentionally obtuse lie!

Honestly all the copyleft licenses and others are garbage, hot take.

It’s a bandaid solution that people refuse to let go of, like a safety blanket. Absolute freedom of information is so surprisingly controversial of an opinion these days. It makes me fucking sick to so frequently see people behave in a way that feels literally brainwashed.

“nooooOooooooOooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FUUUUUCK WE CANT ABOLISH COPYRIGHT THERE ARE STARVING CHILD ARTISTS IN AFRIIIIICCCCCAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaAAA”

—

inb4 “yOu wOuLDn’T bE hAPpY iF sOmEOnE STOLE yoUr aRt, wOulD yoU??? CHECKMATE ATHEIST”

Actually I’d be pretty flattered if someone liked art I made so much they decided to copy it or use it in their own way somehow. I’m not a psycho fucker who thinks state violence should be leveraged against someone for how they chose to copy my work. All copyright apologia I see is even worse hypocrisy than the literal fascist rhetoric you also see nowadays… and those fuckers are some of the biggest hypocrites! Anyway, not to be a crazy fucker myself and respond to my own rhetorical strawman lmfao.

No. This line of thought concedes something to the American neofascist ideologues that I refuse to take seriously as an idea because when you see it plainly stated, not under milquetoast rhetorical wraps… the patent absurdity of the thought gleans true.

What is this idea, this concession? It’s the idea that your only true natural right is what they call the “right of feet” or some other asinine phrase. Technofascists believe you have no natural right other than the right to choose which shitty government you live in.

This isn’t true. Your espousing of the same idea is, similarly, not true. To anyone reading the original doomer comment - don’t let it get you down. You can change your home for the better and just because something doesn’t exist in the real world currently doesn’t mean it is “politically impossible”… think about how many ancient forms of government aren’t found in the world today. Do those constitute something “not politically possible” or are we starting to see the problem here?

People build a better world everyday. If you concede your ability to affect change you sacrifice the most divine nature of man.

I think without some agreement on the value of authorship / creation of original works, it’s pointless to respond to the rest of your argument.

I agree, for this reason we’re unlikely to convince each other of much or find any sort of common ground. I don’t think that necessarily means there isn’t value in discourse tho. We probably agree more than you might think. I do think authors should be compensated, just for their actual labor. Art itself is functionally worthless, I think trying to make it behave like commodities that have actual economic value through means of legislation is overreach. It would be more ethical to accept the physical nature of information in the real world and legislate around that reality. You… literally can “download a car” nowadays, so to speak.

If copying someone’s work is so easily done why do you insist upon a system in which such an act is so harmful to the creators you care about?

Well, not to play devil’s advocate, but they do own and control virtually every facet of global society…

Granted, probably not for much longer. But, it is pertinent that we live in the status quo we do.

Over the years we’ve gradually seen this ratio in society of wealth vs the size of the population it is concentrated getting more and more grotesque. First we had the 1%, then the 0.1%, then the 0.00001%… shit recently we saw that some ridiculously small number of individuals you can count on your hands own over half of the entire globe’s wealth.

Does this mean these people are somehow superior superhuman specimens? No, of course not.

I’m not so willing to accept that the increasingly small circle of people who control society is decided by lot, either, though. When global wealth is further concentrated, how do they even decide who gets kicked off the island, so to speak? Everyone has their snarky answer of how they can so obviously see how this works, usually based on their life experience or something they’ve read, but I genuinely don’t think anyone public is privy to the true nature of this system. And you or I are in no place to even ponder it, or make wild conjecture, as it exists in a world so far removed from us as to be alien. We couldn’t even know where to begin.

Kindly, I believe your blind faith in your societal institutions to be at best naive and at worst a danger to liberty. I mean this as a genuine warning meant to be heeded, not a personal criticism directed at you. I’m an American. This exact blind institutional faith I see you and many other Europeans frequently espouse online was a core part of what caused the civil collapse of my own society. It will happen in yours too if you guys aren’t careful. The prevalence of this way of thinking amongst Europeans I meet online is a dangerous omen. You guys remind me a lot of us back in the 90s. Please. Take it not from an ignorant American, but from a global citizen who has already been down the rough and tumble line.

I think I’ll just quote you from another comment you made in this exact same thread, because you encapsulated it better than I ever could:

“…If your country is corrupt then yes the people with money have power. Not every country is corrupt enough for people to really buy into it.”

This is a fiction. It is a noble lie you are told by people with power. Think semantically. What is corruption? What is “money,” “power,” etc? In your mind, in countries that you believe to be “one of the good ones,” one where by your description the nation “isn’t corrupt enough for people to really buy into it”… who controls the nation and how? Realistically, you aren’t going to be able to provide an answer to that question that is free from discussing existing corruption, because your idea of supposed societies that cross some arbitrary threshold of being “pure vs corrupt”… doesn’t exist in reality. There exists not one corruption-free government, now or ever, in the history of mankind.

This sounds fantastical from your POV but I do mean it as a genuine warning to be heeded. First it starts with gradual scrapes and nicks at the block of reason… stuff exactly like this that everyone engages in on some level, to some degree - it is a transmogrification of the social conscious… soon yet the fascists carve their own damnable Michelangelo from the marble, instead.

Some communities on this site speak about machine learning exactly how I see grungy Europeans from pre-18th century manuscripts speaking about witches, Satan, and evil… as if it is some pervasive, black-magic miasma.

As someone who is in the field of machine learning academically/professionally it’s honestly kind of shocking and has largely informed my opinion of society at large as an adult. No one puts any effort into learning if they see the letters “A” and “I” in all caps, next to each other. Immediately turn their brain off and start regurgitating points and responding reflexively, on Lemmy or otherwise. People talk about it so confidently while being so frustratingly unaware of their own ignorance on the matter, which, for lack of a better comparison… reminds me a lot of how historically and in fiction human beings have treated literal magic.

That’s my main issue with the entire swath of “pro vs anti AI” discourse… all these people treating something that, to me, is simple & daily reality as something entirely different than my own personal notion of it.

Well to be honest lemmy is less prone to knee-jerk reactionary discussion but on a handful of topics it is virtually guaranteed to happen no matter what, even here. For example, this entire site, besides a handful of communities, is vigorously anti-AI; and in the words of u/jsomae@lemmy.ml elsewhere in this comment chain:

“It seems the subject of AI causes lemmites to lose all their braincells.”

I think there is definitely an interesting take on the sociology of the digital age in here somewhere but it’s too early in the morning to be tapping something like that out lol

Even if we accept all your market liberal premise without question… in your own rhetorical framework the Disney lawsuit should be ruled against Disney.

If a human uses AI to recreate the exact tone, structure and other nuances of say, some best selling author, they harm the marketability of the original works which fails fair use tests (at least in the US).

Says who? In a free market why is the competition from similar products and brands such a threat as to be outlawed? Think reasonably about what you are advocating… you think authorship is so valuable or so special that one should be granted a legally enforceable monopoly at the loosest notions of authorship. This is the definition of a slippery-slope, and yet, it is the status quo of the society we live in.

On it “harming marketability of the original works,” frankly, that’s a fiction and anyone advocating such ideas should just fucking weep about it instead of enforce overreaching laws on the rest of us. If you can’t sell your art because a machine made “too good a copy” of your art, it wasn’t good art in the first place and that is not the fault of the machine. Even big pharma doesn’t get to outright ban generic medications (even tho they certainly tried)… it is patently fucking absurd to decry artist’s lack of a state-enforced monopoly on their work. Why do you think we should extend such a radical policy towards… checks notes… tumblr artists and other commission based creators? It’s not good when big companies do it for themselves through lobbying, it wouldn’t be good to do it for “the little guy,” either. The real artists working in industry don’t want to change the law this way because they know it doesn’t work in their favor. Disney’s lawsuit is in the interest of Disney and big capital, not artists themselves, despite what these large conglomerates that trade in IPs and dreams might try to convince the art world writ large of.

The answer is that I don’t think it matters because the US or any other society will never reach some utopic standard of privacy. So long as we live in a world where facial recognition is possible - it is better to regulate it strongly than attempt to prohibit it.

In a modern globalized world the old privacy is dead, no matter how you look at it. Going forward something new will need to be built out of the ashes, be it a new privacy or something better/worse.

it isn’t talked about enough but we’re all calendar challenged. timekeeping in the modern sense is unnatural and is a significant contributor to stress in the Western lifestyle. the clock is the single greatest tool of oppression ever invented. you just can’t talk about it bc the moment you do even other leftists might start calling you a lazy chud.

why is this weird like, anti-american-exceptionalism so prevalent on the internet?

it’s so reactionary. you’re… actively engaging in the same kind of thought process that is the secret ingredient to american stupidity. if you’re not careful what’s happened and happening here will happen wherever you are, if it hasn’t already. and this sort of shit is why…

that’s just their point tho. it’s not true. it’s a fiction fabricated by bourgeois people so they can pretend it’s common people not wanting to work rather than them not being willing to invest in the “poors.” they need to not upset the working class while they rape us because the moment we become aware is the moment we throw them off top of us.

you live in a world where these people’s feelings are more important than your livelihood, at least in the company ledger. software dev is a great example of this. the industry isn’t some wild animal who randomly thrashes about. software and IT falling apart are active processes spurred by choices people who hold keys to the kingdom(s) are making, knowingly. every time some homeless developer gets thrown in jail because it’s literally criminalized to be unhoused here - that’s the system working as intended.

deleted by creator

not to be exclusive but i dislike the contemporary trend of trying to shoehorn polygamy and polyamory into LGBTQ spaces, tbh.

i personally dislike poly, admittedly, but i don’t really think it should be illegal or anything either ig. either way, it’s a lifestyle choice one makes and not an immutable facet of your identity that you’re born with, which i know is an increasingly controversial opinion these days but tbh i don’t think poly people experience oppression or bigotry the same way queer people do and it’s disingenuous to act like they do. it honestly makes me kind of upset to see people so widely positing such a position. i know the inevitable comparison of this rhetoric im using to the rhetoric used against queer people historically but i honestly don’t think that’s a very fair comparison in the case of poly, but that’s a whole can of worms itself.

again, not really an attack on poly people or their right to exist. i know my personal disdain of it probably shines through a bit here in my voice but i don’t want to come off as rude.

I mean, I don’t trust OpenAI or Reddit either but these two things aren’t as mutually exclusive as they seem.

With zero-knowledge principles you could maintain anonymity while still verifying identity. Doesn’t mean that’s what big tech is doing or is gonna do, but also doesn’t mean it’s physically unreal or anything either. We could build a not shitty system.

then lobby your government to open more nuclear power plants? why do you anticipate a nuclear reactor owned by ms is going to be used for anything but what they as a company need it for? like yes it is a fucking waste for them to hoard an entire nuclear power plant to themselves… from the perspective of society at large… microsoft themselves probably view it as a good investment, not wasteful, why wouldn’t they?

microsoft is a corp, they’re only beholden to profit. even if they could give a shit about the poors they wouldn’t unless it could make pretty lines go up.

Because we really need that energy elsewhere rn

yeah, i mean ig. lmao smh. “we” and “elsewhere” are doing a lot of the heavy lifting here in this sentence. i don’t mean to be a dick but this is poor rhetoric. “their nuclear power plant is selfish and bad bc i said so >:(“ really only serves to give libs canon fodder for the “personal responsibility^tm” gun. maybe not as frequently here on lemmy but in the real world that is the response this would get. ik it seems like pedantry but this is a serious issue with leftist messaging in the modern world.