Maybe it's my tinfoil hat that's getting a bit tight here but...
The Chinese are fighting an obesity epidemic like most of the western world, but they have to import all the GLP-1 drugs from companies outside China. They know this will cost a fortune, just look at the US with Novo's ozempic/wegovy. But soon Eli Lilly will have a similar product on the market, and that will be the same for China. They'll have to fork over billions to economic/political adversaries for these drugs, so they want to keep that under control. This is not because they care for anyone's health and safety.
It wasn’t until Kane began scrolling on TikTok and engaging with other creators who took similar drugs — known as semaglutide, or GLP-1 medications — that she decided to “take the plunge” and get a prescription for Mounjaro.
The company’s website states it wants the app to be “a place that encourages self-esteem and does not promote negative social comparisons.” When reached for comment by Rolling Stone, a TikTok spokesperson referred back to the new guidelines, saying the policies were mainly expanded to prevent the sale of weight loss or performance-enhancing drugs on the site — and they still allow for people to share their weight-loss journeys as long as they aren’t extreme, dangerous, or relating to using GLP-1 medications for weight loss.
I have built a community of people who needed someone they could relate to, someone who didn’t shame this medication or put it down or make them feel bad about being overweight or struggling with obesity.”
Since the new guidelines, Taylor has simply moved most of her content onto Instagram, where parent company Meta has more lenient rules about posts surrounding weight loss.
Reports in The Washington Post and The New York Times have speculated that the new guidelines might be in response to the rise of compounded semaglutide, sales of which thrive on TikTok through affiliate link programs.
Compounded versions of semaglutide are mixed by a pharmacist but not manufactured by a name-brand company, which the FDA has warned could cause adverse and dangerous side effects if made by a pharmacy with poor standards.
The original article contains 1,396 words, the summary contains 256 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I think you can provide lyrics yourself, can udio generate lyrics on its own? I listened to some of the staff pick songs, and they were pretty good. I'm not musically inclined, and I have zero skill in coming up with lyrics, but stuff like this and Midjourney let me be creative in ways I don't have natural talent in.
I bet Udio is going to loathed by musicians even harder then artists hate Midjourney.
I feel exactly the same way. I can now be creative in ways I couldn't before. Sometimes I'll use my own lyrics, sometimes I'll use ChatGPT to write lyrics and I'll edit. It's really fun to play with the same lyrics in different genres too.
I mean, I recall looking at last efforts at computer-generated music, but this looks remarkably general purpose. They've got meaningful lyrics, vocals, and instruments.
I thought so too. It's really fun to mess around with as someone who isn't very musically inclined. I did a quick search on Lemmy and was surprised to see neither has really been posted about.
Suno is a bit more active (just because it's been around longer) and there are some hilarious songs there too. I Glued My Balls to My Butthole is one of my favorites.
Is this the new way that Musk bootlickers try to defend his companies from criticism?
This article is clearly referencing how social media technologies are being used to foment online hate.
The CCDH found that these accounts, which have together amassed 4 million new followers since the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas militants, grew four times faster in the months directly following the attack than they had in the months immediately prior. All benefited from the algorithmic boost that comes with paid blue-check verification, and despite repeated community guideline violations, not one has been suspended.
We've had similar issues from Facebook amplifying genocidal movements in the past.
As a matter of fact, I would argue that the influence of "algorithmic boosts" is one of the most significant technological issues of our age. It is even more significant when these technologies are in the hands of racist, misogynistic shitstains like Musk.
Average Lemmy user is anti-Musk so posting about his company's products is guranteed to get a reaction. Especially when it's something negative. That's how social media works; see where the wind is blowing and go that way.
we've had photograph manipulation since the photograph.
we've not had the ease and scale which we are about to have. and its not the same.
anyone can open the box at the corner and mess with a traffic light. and has been able to since we had them.
now give me the ability to mess with all the traffic lights in a city.
Good. If you don't own your body and reputation you own nothing. There is a reason why we have laws in place to protect people from false accusations. And since it is pretty believable that any given person does have sex we need to block out the exemption for reasonable person.
And - while you sort of own your body - you have never owned depictions of your property (that someone else made with their labor).
If you are wondering what I mean by "sort of owning your body": You are not allowed to sell it whole or in parts (ie organs). If you try to destroy or damage it, most governments will interfere. In fact, governments provide assistance to maintain that particular piece of property.
What you can do is sue for copyright infringement (e.g. if they use IP you own in their model, like pictures from a blog) or defamation (false accusations).
But you're right, you don't own your likeness. I can go take a picture of anyone I want and sell it without any issues, provided they're "in public" at the time. If I take enough to train an AI model, yeah, I could use it to make new images. But if I use those images to claim something untrue that's also damaging, they can sue me.
I wish we had more ownership of our bodies though. Suicide should be a right (and doctor assisted suicide should be legal), consensual prostitution should be legal, etc. I'm less interested in selling organs though, just due to the completely coercive nature of it.
I wish we had more ownership of our bodies though.
Do you think this ownership view might be connected to the state of health care in the US? Me, I would balk at being asked to pay to maintain someone's else's property. If they can't afford it, they should sell it. That's not the attitude I have toward the human body, though.
No, the healthcare issues are complex and involve a lot of corruption and inertia, not beliefs around body ownership. In fact, I'd argue it's quite the opposite, Americans in general aren't in favor of bodily ownership, so things like doctor assisted suicide are generally restricted or outright banned. There is a lot of pearl clutching though.
My personal perspective is that as long as there's proper consent, individuals can do what they want with their bodies. But my barrier for "proper consent" is pretty high. Something like prostitution is pretty straightforward with minimal surprises, but selling organs requires pretty in depth knowledge about long term consequences of the surgery and loss of the organ. However, both have a high risk of coercion, so there needs to be rules in place.
But the pearl clutchers just say no to anything that sounds distasteful.
Just because you own something does not mean there are no rules. I can own property that doesn't mean I get to light it in fire, or dump chemicals on it that cause an environmental nightmare, or kill a protected animal, or fish a river flowing through it without a license, or run a meth lab on it....
You own your body and image. 5th amendment. Not having absolute unlimited power over both doesn't change who the owner is. Frankly this type of black and white thinking is lolitarian logic.
The real problem is that people automatically believe what they see online, no matter how ridiculous or outrageous, rather than thinking about probability and provenance and supporting evidence and all that stuff.
Unfortunately, this problem is not likely to be solved any time soon, since we've had more than a quarter-century now (since the advent of image editing software) to work on it. Hell, even further back than that, a certain percentage of the population could be fooled into believing in UFOs by a blurry black-and-white photograph of pie plates suspended from fishing line. We're never gonna fix this.
The problem also goes both ways though. Not only does it create fake things but it makes it much easier to discredit real things by just claiming that it's deep faked.
Friendly reminder we've had photoshop for decades. Legislation can't keep up with technology and trying to do so will almost always come at the cost of constitutional rights. Like freedom of expression.
If I want to photoshop a dick on Trump's face, nobody should be allowed to tell me no. It's not fucking "interpersonal violence".
Photoshopping a dick onto Trump's face is 100% protected expression. Producing a photoreal deepfake of him balls deep in Lindsey Graham's ass while Mitch McConnell can be seen holding the camera in a mirror wearing a ballgag and cuck strap then posting it online either without context or trying to pass it off as real is a problem.
The problem isn’t just scale, it’s ease of use. Photoshop took time, skill, and it was usually still pretty apparent that a photo had been manipulated—not to mention the evidence when you can find the original elements in the actual photo, which could’ve been done by anyone who was willing to search enough in order to debunk it. Now AI gives near flawless photoshop skills to every single person, infinitely upping the likelihood that a complete fabrication of unique elements, untraceable to any original photo, can cause serious harm.
Remember that pope in the puffy jacket photo? It had telltale signifiers of AIgen, but it still fooled insane amounts of people. Now, make the photo abusive and with a small amount of work, erase the AI flaws. And release it at an opportune time for the bad actor (I would bet a lot that we will see some of this as the election nears. A truly groundbreaking “October surprise”). What’s that old saying? “A lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to pull its boots on?”
You’re right that it’s hard for legislation to keep up with technology. But that’s because technology companies are insanely rich and can endlessly lobby. And we have corrupt as fuck legislators. We could keep up with technology. But the system is broken in favor of those who want zero oversight. And it breaks further every time one of them is successful. Regulating massive companies to hobble their ability to cause lasting damage should not be mentioned alongside terms like “freedom of expression.” Yes, the power to create these images is technically in the hands of the people feeding the AI the prompt, but restricting the abilities of a company to hand dangerous tools to anyone and everyone isn’t the same thing as restricting people’s right to create. I think that’s a dangerous way of thinking.
rollingstone.com
Hot