Just to put a point on the topic: piracy is not universally illegal and the fediverse isn't confined to the laws of a single instance's host country, only that instance is... I don't know what the guy said, moderators deleted it and I'm lazy .. but piracy isn't necessarily always a crime and to say it should be from a place where it currently is, is inherently pretty biased. Can't avoid that.
I also think it's hilarious a drama sub has people writing diatribes at emoji responses.
He's a bellwether for the party. "How far can we push the message". That's not ironically the exact purposes of primaries when you get down to it - consolidating a party message. You use different politicians to highlight different aspects, send them out and get the feedback. They'll do it for healthcare platforms the same way they will for fascist ones. Same game rules apply.
Might seem kind of snarky to generalize actual states and actual people and their actual lives as game theory, but that's exactly what they do. Because it works. Every major party engages in that kind of thing worldwide.
You're following me exactly, just not seeing what I'm pointing at.
I agree, a human can't meaningfully distinguish between a flat white picture made by a human (with say, MSPaint) and one made by an "AI" with a data model that includes the color Flat White. Similarly there's no meaningful distinction to be made between 4'33" as performed by an algorithm vs one performed by a master pianist - humans can't do that and neither can a machine.
We've called certain kinds of entertainment "formulaic" - well that wasn't inaccurate. It was. It is. We are. We are algorithmic. And just like in decades past when scientists put forth the idea that our emotions are just the combination of biology and chemistry, there will be serious existential pushback from certain sectors of humanity. Because it belittles the idea of what it is to be human and relegates us back to simple animals that can be trained. The reality is we are just that. And we keep proving it.
We've been seeing this problem framed as one facing teachers and educators: How do we know students aren't cheating and having an LLM writing their term papers? The reality is if they have been and teachers didn't catch that from the start? The fault isn't the tool they used. They're teaching and grading the wrong thing.
Language, like math largely did with the calculator, will be relegated to machines and algorithms because we already did that to ourselves a long time ago. We're just building the machines to do the same thing for us, and getting the desired results. If I ask you what 237 x 979 is I don't expect you to math that out in your head, I expect you to probably use a calculator to get that answer. But it's still important we teach kids how to multiply 237 and 979 together on paper. It's very simple to do that and avoid the use of computers altogether. It's basic writing skills after all. Teaching isn't about producing term papers, what does it matter that LLMs might be used to cheat them then? It's about educating the students. Our whole focus on the problems of LLMs is just highlighting over and over and over the problems we as society have had for a long long long time, far before anyone knew what an "LLM" was.
Sorry. I rant.
I really hate the label AI. They're data models, not intelligence - artificial or otherwise. It's PAI. Pseudo Artificial Intelligence, which we've had since the 80s.
The thing is that these data models are, in the end, fed to algorithms to provide output. That being the case it's a mathematical certainty that it can be reversed and thus, shown to be from such an algorithm. Watermark or not, if an algorithm makes a result, then you can deduce the algorithm from a given set of it's results.
It wouldn't be able to meaningfully distinguish 4'33" from silence though. Nor could it determine a flat white image wasn't made by an algorithm.
I think what we're really demonstrating in all this is just exactly how algorithmically human beings think already. Something psychology has been talking about for a longer time still.
You don't even know what "identity politics" means, apparently.
Don't bother with your half-cocked reply, asshole, I already blocked you and I recommend other readers do the same.
Really wanna see how it handles the standard Photoshop touch ups. It's not like the news media has never altered photos to solicit a skewed perception.
Confirming this has been happening to me.
We need a good drama sub to track all the meta tea.
In so many words you just said what I said. Safe spaces aren't where people go to affect change though, at least no where but within themselves. I'm not downplaying their importance by saying so either. I'm just saying that if you're looking to affect real change in society, that a safe space isn't what you want to do that in. It's not what they're for.
No joke, start digging into the guys who made ancient aliens and not too long after you start seeing Nazi shit in their past. Like explicitly so, not tangentially related, not "neo" but actual Nazis. Historical revisionism is literally the basis of the show, so you shouldn't be surprised that the main players are Holocaust deniers.
Wanna know who wrote the book the show is based on? It wasn't Von Daniken. He only wrote the first, unsuccessful draft. Utz Utermann rewrote the second draft that actually became very popular. Guess where he was from? Guess what he was doing during WW2? Writing propaganda for the Hitler Youth and working as the editor for Nazi newspapers. I'm dead serious.
Ancient Aliens is just soft selling literal, actual mystic Nazism and it always, always, always has been.
Don’t go looking for the safe place to have the conversation, make all spaces safe for the conversation to take place.
This. No safe space in the world will fix the problem. Safe spaces aren't for addressing concerns, but simply outletting them. Venting without fear. That's all they're good for. If you want to affect change you need to challenge the problems where they arise, when they arise. Directly. That's how you "be a man" today without being toxic: by having the courage it takes to say what ought to be said instead of the cowardice to let bad ideas go unchecked.
This is a wildly over generalized take.
Twitter was also an important tool for journalists and researchers worldwide. Military targets have come from Twitter posts. It is a reflection of a huge chunk of society. You may as well call all of internet technology "just a porn box" for how wildly over generalized that statement is. The reality is your generalization comes from arrogance. "I never engaged in such frivolous behavior". You're here now. Yes you have and yes you do.
Even your comment is the first cousin of outrage, it's pure disdain. Nothing more or less, and exactly as valuable as outrage.