LadyAutumn

LadyAutumn , 11 days ago

Being a landlord is morally wrong. Shelter is a human right, not a service. The service that they provide is not calling the cops to evict you so long as you pay them. They don't otherwise provide you with anything.

LadyAutumn , 11 days ago

I do agree that grocery stores are morally wrong in some sense yes. People should not have to lend their bodies in order to eat. Hotels aren't morally wrong entirely, because they're only providing a place to stay temporarily. If they did provide long term stay and charged for it than yes that would be morally wrong. You'll note that I'm an anarchist.

There is no such thing as a moral landlord. And the people you're talking about downsized. The landlord does not do repairs, he hires handyman and trades workers to do repairs. The landlord collects a tax from you while giving you nothing in return. My rent is twice the monthly cost of a mortgage for a mini home in my area.

When you have a mortgage the money isn't gone when you spend it, it's used to pay off your loan. When you're done you own the property.

I will never own this property. None of my money is returned to me. It is taken by a person or entity who literally does not provide me anything.

I'll repeat, providing shelter isn't a service. What the landlord is providing you, is not evicting you so long as you provide them a taxation of your wages that goes straight into their pocket. If all landlords died overnight nothing would materially change except for all the people renting could now keep their wages, and hire the handyman to do the work themselves. Housing co-ops also cover the costs of upkeep by pooling money to spend. No, landlords are 100% immoral 100% of the time and your buddy who's a good guy and a landlord might be a good guy but it has nothing to do with his being a landlord. Some cops save dying animals and volunteer at soup kitchens I'm sure, they're all still bastards by participating in a system of militarized state violence.

LadyAutumn , 11 days ago (edited 11 days ago)

My rent is 50% of my income I will never get back.

No, renting is literally incomparably more stressful than owning a home would be where I could sell it at any time and get a portion of my invested income back.

If I could opt out of my landlord calling the plumber when I need one, I sure as fuck would if it meant I could keep my money. No, my rent goes straight into his pocket every month and a fraction of a fraction ever comes out to cover upkeep. I'd happily opt out and pay it myself.

You sound like you're probably decently middle class. Which is fine and I'm not saying that you have no experience being a lower class renter. But you probably are not familiar with the same financial pressures we live under today.

Landlords should not exist. Nothing would be lost if we converted every apartment building into a co-op. We would all have much more disposable income and much more control over where we lived.

LadyAutumn , 11 days ago

You're awfully lucky then. That's a form of socialism, assuming that your government is intervening and ensuring affordable rent even for homeless and those on assistance. And what are the quality of those rentals? Have you lived in one personally?

LadyAutumn , 12 days ago (edited 12 days ago)

How do you think they train models to generate CSAM?

Some of yall need to lookup what an LoRA is

LadyAutumn , 12 days ago

It should be illegal either way, to be clear. But you think theyre not training models on CSAM? Youre trusting in the morality/ethics of people creating AI generated child pornography?

LadyAutumn , 29 days ago

Well, the US doesn't even have a National curriculum, so I'm willing to be that there are probably many Americans who don't know anything about Kent state.

LadyAutumn , 30 days ago (edited 29 days ago)

Yeah I can definitely see how the argument about "original semites" is coming very close to outright hatred and antisemitism. We have to be more conscious of the language we use than that. We shouldn't be making arguments in this vein but instead focusing on anti-colonial arguments. When discussing the colonialism of relocating European Jewish communities to Palestine there's no reason to be using this kind of "race politics" language.

The relationship between Ashkenazi jews and the communities that were already present in Palestine is not something I understand very well, and more broadly the history of Ashkenazi jews as a whole is something I'm only familiar with as it relates to early 20th century European politics. It's something I'd like to do my own research on from reliable sources to better understand how these kinds of arguments feed into genuine hatred of Jewish people.

I'm not as educated on the broader nature of antisemitic arguments as I should be. I appreciate you adding context to why some Jewish students feel unsafe with the discourse going on at the moment. Anti-Zionist action has an obligation to protect Jewish people as much as it has an obligation to protect Muslim people and ethnic Palestinians. Our goals ought to be to separate ourselves from race hierarchy and protect human rights for all. It's critically important that in advocating against the Israeli government and the IDF that we do not tolerate anti-semitism in any form and that we reject the support of ant-semitic people wherever it appears.

LadyAutumn , 1 month ago

It should be illegal to misrepresent an ad as a post or comment. This exact thing should be against the law. The boundary between advertising and social media is so thin at this point. It has to stop. It's dangerous for consumers. Corporations should have to clearly label themselves at every turn. The usage of AI to intermingle advertising and social media should be blanket illegal.

LadyAutumn , 1 month ago

Lot of people in this thread who don't seem to understand what sexual exploitation is. I've argued about this exact subject on threads like this before.

It is absolutely horrifying that someone you know could take your likeness and render it into a form for their own sexual gratification. It doesn't matter that it's ai rendered. The base image is still you, the face in the image is still your face, and you are still the object being sexualized. I can't describe how disgusting that is. If you do not see the problem in that I don't know what to tell you. This will be used on images of normal non-famous women. It will be used on pictures from the social media profiles of teenage girls. These ads were on a platform with millions of personal accounts of women and girls. It's sickening. There is no consent involved here. It's non-consensual pornography.

LadyAutumn , 1 month ago

You are misunderstanding why people become thieves in the first place, and how comparatively uncommon pure thievery is. The majority of theft is legal and is done in the name of capitalist profiteering. Not that break ins don't happen, nor that everyone will be a good person and accept a society of mutual aid.

Genuine theft will still occur. The consequences of something being stolen would not be the same within an anarchist society built on mutual aid. It is much easier to recover from theft when shelter, food, water, are all guaranteed things that you don't have to fret over. So the consequences will largely be interpersonal, grudges and disputes between people over less consequential things like valuables of some particular nature.

I am not of the opinion that violence of the community need be used on such a situation either. We aren't the police for Christ's sake. We can actually settle disputes in a proactive way that attempts to rectify the situation that precipitated the theft (maybe someone needs mental health help, maybe there are interpersonal issues) without kicking the shit out of anyone.

Violent crimes can be handled however the community sees fit. But things like theft or destroying someone's clothes should be handled proactively to ensure lasting solutions for everyone involved. Violence is a pretty bad deterrent for this kind of behavior.

LadyAutumn , 1 month ago

Half elected officials with power are appointed not elected. The Supreme Court took away women's bodily autonomy. There was no popular vote for any of them not a single one. Also just because I vote someone in doesn't mean I agree with everything they do. Wouldn't it be more expedient to just use direct democracy so I can actually have a say?

"Your options are conservative A or B, and whatever actions they take are necessarily ones you voted for and agree with!"

LadyAutumn , 1 month ago

If enough people want something it'll happen... how? Like no seriously how? Is there some reason that the people shouldn't be allowed to directly vote on things? Are you saying that elected officials are reliable in implementing the needs of their constituents? Why is politics so contentious then?

LadyAutumn , 1 month ago

It is here. We did the math, and a mortgage on a brand new house was literally half our rent at 20k down. The barrier to entry is the down payment. Those "good terms" entirely have to do with how much income you make and how much debt you have.

I pay for maintenance on my apartment. This is essentially universal where I live. Also, maintenance costs do not come anywhere near the gap between mortgage and rent payments. Mortgage is literally less than half on a very, very shitty apartment. We didn't even have proper heating when we first moved in to our last apartment. We both work full-time jobs. The building was very close to being condemned. It was the cheapest in our town of less than 100k. Mortgage on homes less than 10 years old was legitimately half our rent. Including HOA, including insurance, including taxes and utilities, it was literally half the cost.

But 20k we do not have. And we have not been able to save even a quarter of that, as our cost of living has doubled in the last 4 years. Entirely due to profiteering by corporations and landlords.

Long and gist of it, no, unless it's a government run property rent is literally 0 out of 10 times going to be cheaper. Do you not understand the fundamental purpose of being a landlord? Are you under some kind of delusional belief that any measurable amount of landlords are in the business of renting properties out of the kindness of their hearts? No, being a landlord is just like being a company that sells water. You're going to charge absolutely as much as you can possibly get away with, because literally the entire purpose of being a landlord is to make money while doing as little time investment as possible. Our last landlord did literally nothing for over a year while the house fell apart around us. We gave him over 20 thousand dollars in rent. The land tax there was peanuts. He pocketed at least 10k for doing literally nothing.

The point of being a landlord is having enough net money at the start to literally not work. To literally do no labor for which they are beholden to someone. To collect tax from the serfs that occupy their land. They are part of a separate economic and social class. And profiteering is the entire reason anyone chooses to do it. There's literally no other measurable reason. There may be one or 2 mythical landlords who are running themselves into debt cause they love their tenants or whatever the fuck, but they're not even a thousandth of a percentile. Literally statistically irrelevant.

LadyAutumn , 1 month ago

Daily run it for the last 5 months. Switched cause I was tired of windows. Have thus far not been unable to do even a single thing. Games run better in proton than on windows native for me.

LadyAutumn , 1 month ago

I wound up on arch :) I used mint for a while, and used to use Ubuntu and Mint a lot when I was in high school. But there were a lot of features of each I didn't want and wanted an option to opt out of. Arch had a learning curve to it, just becoming accustomed to working with rolling release software.

And like I play games and run media servers and a lot else off of this one desktop. I really don't feel limited by it at all, except in cases like fortnite not allowing people to play on Linux even though it's completely possible to do so.

LadyAutumn , 1 month ago

Hahaha it's my fav 😂 my partner just thinks I'm dorky about it lmao

LadyAutumn , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

They're making pornography of women who are not consenting to it when that is an extremely invasive thing to do that has massive social consequences for women and girls. This could (and almost certainly will) be used on kids too right, this can literally be a tool for the production of child pornography.

Even with regards to adults, do you think this will be used exclusively on public figures? Do you think people aren't taking pictures of their classmates, of their co-workers, of women and girls they personally know and having this done to pictures of them? It's fucking disgusting, and horrifying. Have you ever heard of the correlation between revenge porn and suicide? People literally end their lives when pornographic material of them is made and spread without their knowledge and consent. It's terrifyingly invasive and exploitative. It absolutely can and must be illegal to do this.

LadyAutumn , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

How can you describe your friends, family, co-workers, peers, making and sharing pornography of you, and say that it comes down to hurt feelings??? It's taking someone's personhood, their likeness, their autonomy, their privacy, and reducing them down to a sexual act for which they provide no knowledge or consent. And you think this stays private?? Are you kidding me?? Men have literally been caught making snapchat groups dedicated to sharing their partner's nudes without their consent. You either have no idea what you're talking about or you are intentionally downplaying the seriousness of what this is. Like I said in my original comment, people contemplate and attempt suicide when pornographic content is made and shared of them without their knowledge and consent. This is an incredibly serious discussion.

It is people like you, yes you specifically, that provide the framework by which the sexual abuse of women is justified.

LadyAutumn , 2 months ago

No, I'm saying make it so that you go to prison for taking pictures of someone and making pornography of them without their consent. Pretty straightforward. If you're found doing it, off to rot in prison with you.

LadyAutumn , 2 months ago

I love that on my arch setup, I update every single day, usually more than once, and doing so almost never requires me to powercycle my computer.

LadyAutumn , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

Why would Trump have to carpet bomb Gaza? Israel is literally already doing that with American bombs. What benefit would it be to Trump to spend billions of dollars deploying US military forces to take military action Israel is already taking? Trump would just continue letting Israel do whatever they want with no international repercussions. The genocide of Palestine is not popular with the extreme right, which is virulently anti-Semitic and has seized on the genocide as an excuse to promote anti semitism. Not to mention, Trump has territorial goals in mind. He wouldn't commit military forces to a place far from the Americas (and away from his territorial ambitions) to ethically cleanse a group of people who mean nothing to him.

LadyAutumn , 2 months ago

He literally said today that he will never stop supporting and arming Israel.

LadyAutumn , 2 months ago

The very beginning. The emulator scene has existed since the 80s. The emulator scene has fought against Nintendo since literally the NES. And they have frequently won.

LadyAutumn , 2 months ago

I'm anti capitalist and explicitly anti commerce, especially with regards to large corporations, so. Whether it's for piracy or not doesn't matter. When I buy a game, I should have a legal right to do whatever I want with the data comprising that game. Including creating software to play it on other devices. It, therefore, should absolutely be legal to create and use emulators. Whether a particular end user is using it on legitimately purchased copies is beyond the scope of control of the creator of the emulator. This was already settled in courts in the 90s.

Piracy is also moral. It's always moral to pirate content created and/or distributed my international corporations with income in the billions.

LadyAutumn , 2 months ago

So morality of crime is defined by the success of the victim?

Close, the morality of a crime is defined by the impact that committing the crime has on the lives and rights of others. Killing someone is a vile crime. You've taken away someone's inaliable right to life. Stealing from the poor is a vile crime. You have taken the means of survival from someone who struggles to survive. Stalking is a vile crime. You've interceded on someone's inaliable right to privacy and safety.

How does downloading a cracked video game or a TV show impact others? Who is being victimized, and how are they being victimized? Say, for instance, that today I download a game for free. What tangible impact does this have on others?

So if our 'victim' is a multi billion dollar corporation that is one of the fastest growing game companies in the world and is quickly approaching income levels rivaling some small nations, the tangible impact that me downloading their game for free has is literally none. There is no impact. They will never even know that I did it, and I do not consider the "right to commerce" as a fundamental human right. I do not think that me taking potential profits from billionaire investors is in any way interceding on their human rights and also do not believe that the action causes any harm to them.

So if you become incredibly successful for what you created there becomes a point where it's moral for you to lose all rights and control over your art?

Corporations are not people. The designers artists and programmers at Nintendo do not direcy profit from game sales. They are paid a salary by their company. Again, it's relative. There is no such thing as a moral absolute, we have to consider the context in which actions happen and the effects those actions cause. Stealing from the poor is vile. Stealing from Walmart isn't.

So then the moral of the lesson is that art is worthless and creating new things serves no useful purpose?

I do not consider the primary purpose of art to be profit for shareholders, if that's what you consider "useful purpose". Art is useful in that it communicates human emotions and experiences. It's useful in that it delights us, it inspires us, and we take great enjoyment in it. Even if all art was free, this would still be true. Free games are fun. Free books are worth reading. Free music is worth listening to. Paintings don't lose value because I can see them without paying. Your view of art and your view of capital are so intertwined that you are ignorant of the reality that art is not capital.

Almost like the game companies learned that same lesson from people like you and just started making shittier games to accomodate their shittier fans.

Every single corporation on Earth will cut as many corners as possible to generate the maximum possible revenue for the minimal possible cost. Shitty games still sell exceedingly well. They have a profit incentive to invest as little money into their games as possible. Games as products are less enjoyable than games as art. We love games whose creators felt passion in creating them. We love games whose designers believed in what they were making, and felt connected to their product. Faceless corporations lose this entirely. Games are how Nintendo makes money. Therefore, even if no one wants to make this game, it must be made. For Nintendo must turn profit. This is part of the reason some games are amazing experiences and others are clear, transparent cash grabs.

LadyAutumn , 3 months ago

Painting nails different colors has always been a thing lol

LadyAutumn , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

I think a significant part of this is rooted in how those two sentences are usually used socially to denote different things. Men routinely describe their wife being upset at them in any capacity as yelling at them. When a woman says her husband is yelling at her she usually doesn't mean that he got upset that she said something insensitive about him, she usually means that her husband had a bad day and came home to hurl misogynistic slurs and vague threats at his wife. Or that she didn't want to have sex and he became enraged at her.

Verbal abuse is a serious issue that also happens to men but would usually come with some kind of clarification from the speaker. As it is socially less common for men to feel comfortable enough to talk about their experiences with physical and emotional abuse. Women by and large suffer on an almost entire class basis from these things, and our language reflects that. Nobody decided it is that way, it's a byproduct of violence against women. The most accurate application of the language would be "my spouse is verbally/mentally/emotionally abusing me" and it does yield pretty consistent results for husband/wife.

LadyAutumn , 3 months ago

I never made any comment on my opinion towards the application of the term. I only pointed out that it's used differently, for reasons determined by social factors, and that more specific language eliminates confusion.

What you're describing sounds like verbal and emotional abuse. You can call it that. It's okay to say that you have been verbally abused before. I don't know you, nor can I make any kind of sweeping declarative statements based on 2 sentences a random person has sent me. But I assume that you feel you were abused and I am in no way invalidating that.

LadyAutumn , 3 months ago

Doesn't sound like you're all that into survival games.

LadyAutumn , 3 months ago

I do think it's important that people know what it is they're celebrating, but yeah like my local Chinese community always does a lunar new year celebration that is open to everyone. I think a lot of Chinese people (and other communities that celebrate the lunar new year, like Okinawan Korean Vietnamese and many others) see open celebration as creating more appreciation for and understanding of their culture.

LadyAutumn , 4 months ago

Lot of people didn't read the community title before commenting lol.

LadyAutumn , 4 months ago

Results vary wildly. Some images are near pixel perfect. Others, it clearly knows what image it is intended to be replicating. Like it gets all the conceptual pieces in the right places but fails to render an exact copy.

Not a very good compression ratio if the image you get back isn't the one you wanted, but merely an image that is conceptually similar.

LadyAutumn , 4 months ago

Well, the vagina is part of the internal bit. The vulva is the external bit. See, we already have the language for this, it's just that it rarely is used.

LadyAutumn , 4 months ago

Yeah. Not that it's the fault of artists that capitalism exists in its current form. Their art is the fruit of their labor, and therefore, means should be taken to ensure that their labor is properly compensated. And I'm a marxist anarchist, no part of me agrees with any part of the capitalist system. But artists are effectively workers, and we enjoy the fruits of their labor. They are rarely fairly compensated for their work. In this particular instance, under the system we live in, artists rights should be prioritized over

I'm all for janky (getting less janky as time goes on) AI images, but I don't understand why it's so hard to ask artists permission first to use their data. We already maintain public domain image databases, and loads of artists have in the past allowed their art to be used freely for any purpose. How hard is it to gather a database of art who's creators have agreed to let it be used for AI? All the time we've (the collective we) been arguing over thise could've been spent implementing a system to create such a database.

LadyAutumn , 4 months ago

Fair enough, and I can't claim to be a fan of copyright law or how it's used. Maybe what I'm moreso talking about is a standard of ethics? Or some laws governing the usage of image and text generating AI specifically as opposed to copyright law. Like just straight up a law making it mandatory for AI to provide a list of all the data it used, as well as proof of the source of that data having consented to it's use in training the AI.

LadyAutumn , 4 months ago

I'm not talking about IP holders, and I do not agree with copyright law. I'm not having a broad discussion on copyright here. I'm only saying, and not saying anything more, that people who sit down and make a painting and share it with their friends and communities online should be asked before it is scanned to train a model. That's it.

LadyAutumn , 4 months ago

I'm just gonna ask you to read my above comment again. What I'm suggesting is:

"Before you scrape and analyze art with the specific purpose of making an AI art generator model, you must ask permission from the original creating artist."

LadyAutumn , 4 months ago

Those are corporations. I'm concerned about how this impacts individuals. Small artists on social media, who make a living off small commissions. I think it is morally and ethically wrong to steal from them.

I also strongly dislike the way you are portraying artists as a monolith. There are some artists who would be willing to submit their art to make an image generation model. You're essentially complaining that not enough people would say yes in your opinion. As though there aren't hundreds of millions of public domain paintings drawings music and all sorts of things that can already be used without screwing over Charlotte and her small time Instagram art dig she affords her 1 bedroom apartment with. You're refusing to even ask her if she's okay with her creations being used in this way.

You're wrong. What you're describing is immoral. I don't care about corporations. They're not who I'm interested in protecting. Its artists themselves. You're also wrong that AI art is some boon for humanity. It's cheap, barely passable noise. Literally, that is what it is. A beefed up toy that mostly exists to generate shitty articles and images that corporations can churn out en mass to manipulate people. That's its best use case at the moment. It's gonna be a very long time, if ever, that human creativity and wit can be engineered.

LadyAutumn , 4 months ago

Yeah, I'm not too concerned with janky AI generators having to ask before training a model on someone's art. Sucks for them I guess.

I don't agree with copyright. I'm an anarchist. I'm openly in favor of piracy, derivative, whatever else a human being might do with something. I don't agree with judicial systems, let alone market economies or even currency as a concept. And that's all fine and dandy, but there are people alive right now under capitalism. Unlike piracy, which pretty much exclusively takes from corporations like the overwhelming majority of things that are pirated are produced by corporate studios and studio funded artists, this one very specific thing takes the most specifically from artists the overwhelming majority of whom are already very poorly compensated many of them literally barely get by at all. AI models should have to ask them to copy and repurpose their works.

That's my only statement. You can assume I effectively don't agree with any other thing. I'm not here to have a long winded nuanced debate about a legal system I don't agree with and am not supporting in literally any capacity. I'm pointing at pixiv the website and saying "hey can you guys like actually ask before you start using these people's shit to make AI that is purposefully built to make sure that they are run out of jobs"

Unless you're going to somehow explain why artists aren't worth existing or something then don't even bother answering. I'm genuinely not interested in what you have to say and am tired of repeating myself in this thread.

LadyAutumn , 4 months ago

'Charlotte' draws for people. She's good at it, and it's her livelihood. People like her are hurting literally no one by drawing things. She enriches the lives of all the people who enjoy her work. She should have a choice in whether or not her works are used to make image generators. That's it. It's not complicated. You shouldn't get to decide this for her, she never posted her images to the internet with the knowledge that someone would use them to figuratively build a machine with the expressive purpose of rendering what she does useless (even if it's very bad at doing so).

AI art stands against everything that every artist had ever taught me. It's spit on the face of art as a concept. It's art devoid of creation. Art made out of very long, very complicated algorithms weighing weights adjusted by billions of pictures passed through it. It's no more expressive or inspirational than an RNG function attached to a midi keyboard. It's mimicry, mimicry that really only stands to benefit corporations. I'm not about it.

AI in pretty well any other case? I'm on board. Let's automate human labor, all the things that we are forced to do for work. No more physical labor, no more 9 to 5, no more retail or fast food or corporate jobs. Do away with it all. I'm totally with you there. Doing away with human art? I mean, I've got no interest in that. If you like staring at what amounts essentially to nothing, then be my guest. I'm very open minded with art in general, totally down with avant guarde pieces, performance art, noise music, all the stuff at the fringe that offends the delicate sensibilities of those who seek to gatekeep what is or isn't genuine human expression.

Pretty big difference there is all those things are made by people. People with talent. Artists. We are enjoy the fruits of their labor. Their rights should be respected. They should have a say in whether specifically AI is allowed to copy their works.

LadyAutumn , 4 months ago

I dont want copyright to be expanded, I dont want laws governing intellectual property at all. I've described what I think is right pretty fully. I don't need you to tell me where I stand.

You can read my other comments if you want to engage with it any further. I'm not mistaking you for someone else. I'm just tired of people rehashing the same endless points. Arguing with AI bros is tireless, pointlessly futile. It consistently devolves into innane nonsense. I'm fully on board with doing away with copyright as a concept entirely. My request is that artificial image and text generation be regulated in a way that is ethical with respect to small content creators who should have a say in what software their art is used to generate. That's it fam I'm out

LadyAutumn , 4 months ago

Yes, an-caps lol famous for standing up for small time by commission digital artists trying to avoid exploitation of their creations. Totally yup you got me. All my criticism of corporations and pointing how AI art specifically benefits corporations at the detriment of actual human beings is very ancap of me.

Your whole bit about a new owner class is just, so far out there I don't even know what you're on. I don't have time to try and work through the justifications for why you think that you're entitled to make a mimic program for other peoples stuff. Not just to do it, but to claim that it makes you an artist.

Sorry but nah you're in the minority here. In this specific community in this specific space your voice is overrepresented. I've never met another person who agrees that our prototypical Charlotte and others like her are demonic overlords of the new ruling class who are seeking to subvert creativity and lock it in their hands. God, most of the artists I know willingly train others and a lot of them make content to train others. Now you're essentially complaining that you can't draw lmao like it's just ridiculous. I can't draw either, that's fine I don't want to put in the work to be able to create real visual art. I can live with that. I wouldn't use an ethically sourced AI image generator anyway, as it's literally an elaborate RNG function with a mimicry algorithm attached to it. It has no meaning and is empty.

Like typing "a cool painting" into bing image generator, which then tries its best to copy other real paintings made by real people, makes you an artist somehow. It doesn't. And you're not going to convince me of that, of all people. Let alone the majority of society who definitely do not agree that that makes you an artist, or that it makes it right to scrape images from artists like that.

Also the bit about me deeming people to have talent is just stupid. I'm not judging their artistic ability, I'm saying they're literally not making art they're not showcasing any artistic ability whether I think it's good or not.

LadyAutumn , 4 months ago

Can you explain why you think that requiring people to use public domain or ask for permission to use non-public domain content to train image or text generators would benefit corporations? How does that benefit OpenAI, making them ask before using someones content?

LadyAutumn , 4 months ago

That's become a whole rallying call for queerphobia lately. They also have beef with the words diversity, equity, and inclusion? I don't even fucking know they can't make their thoughts coherent and they don't even bother trying.

LadyAutumn , 4 months ago

Web 2.0 desperately clinging to life. FOSS self hosted web is the future. Internet speeds are fast enough on home networks that self hosting is perfectly viable for essentially everything, and for the few things that can't be self hosted by just anyone, FOSS alternatives and work arounds to existing paid services exist.

Internet is becoming harder to monopolize, and increasing amounts of power and control are being handed back to the working class online. FOSS has become a movement that has grown exponentially over the last few years.

Their next recourse will be attempting to make jail time a thing for piracy. Both for hosting it and downloading it.

LadyAutumn , 4 months ago

It can apply existing concepts in ways we haven't thought of. AI has been used for exactly this thing for years in chemistry. When given constraints (less lithium) and parameters (with this much capacity) it can try permutations of various designs that theoretically meet those conditions.

Yes AI is overhyped, yes it's often exaggerated by news sources, but that doesn't mean AI is a non-invention or something. It's a long way off from any of the lofty goals that are often thrown around by tech ceos, but that doesn't mean it's useless.

LadyAutumn , 4 months ago

Yeah, I'll never use Chrome again. Google has always been shady, but this latest round of anti-features is unbelievable. I'm shocked there's been no anti-trust suits related to what they're doing with Chrome. Firefox is just a better browser with way more security options and extension support. That alone is enough for me to stick with it.