fear

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Imagine getting caught and having your claim denied or being sued for insurance fraud. I'm happy to use ublock origin, but what you're describing is playing with fire. We need to make sure it never gets to this point in the first place by making it illegal for insurance companies to do this.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Okay, I get your point now. If all artists had your stance and felt this hobbled them, then I'd understand thinking Hasbro's decision is wrong. But not every artist agrees with you. This is reminiscent of the argument between digital and physical art, with digital artist's struggle to be seen as viable against oil painters and other physical media artists. Except digital isn't any better or worse, they're simply different mediums. You could argue pros and cons for both types, but in the end everyone is entitled to the medium they prefer. This includes AI assisted artwork. If someone prefers digital art but wants no AI influence, that's up to them since art is entirely subjective.

This is a perfectly valid direction for Hasbro to want to take, and they're the ones who get to make the call. Not every artist feels hobbled by being barred from AI tools, some artists prefer to avoid AI entirely. There are plenty of people who would happily accept these jobs.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 years ago (5 children)

That's not what Hasbro wants, though, and it's completely within their rights to have this stipulation for artwork that is tied to their brand. You sound offended by their decision, when their decision will likely result in more humans being employed and valued for their human contributions. Seems like a strange thing to have a problem with. No one is saying you can't make your own personal D&D art with AI tools.

[–] [email protected] 104 points 2 years ago (12 children)

Something needs to happen to clue in the average person about why this is such a problem. I don't know what that something is though. Continued breaches of privacy? The government and police continuing to make obvious use of the data they can easily buy from any of these companies? What is it going to take for people to care and for laws to be made to prevent more of this going forward?

I was talking to my insurance company the other day and they warned me that if I make any changes to my policy they'll drastically jack up my rate because of the changes in the economy. But I can bring it down a bit if I install their tracking software on my phone that can interface with my vehicle and send all of my driving data to them. It would tell them everywhere I ever go whenever I drive, my exact speed at any moment, braking habits, etc. Does anyone ever say yes to this? Do people realize that they could sift through everything you've ever done effortlessly with AI to find that one time in your life you came to a rolling stop at a deserted stop sign and claim you're a dangerous driver who doesn't follow the rules of the road in order to deny your claim?

Is there a chance in hell that one day this won't be a requirement just to have vehicle insurance? Why isn't everyone up in arms about their data being harvested and sold to the highest bidder? Why are there not laws being made against this kind of undemocratic, authoritarian control over people? I am so disappointed in my fellow man, both the ones guilty of the harvesting and everyone who couldn't be bothered to complain and put a stop to this.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

Foot dick has a glossy NPC gaze, but the girl on the front left looks fun.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

They probably know better than to eat their own product.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Don't give France any ideas.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

this study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute under grant numbers R21 HL135300 and R01 HL150053, as well as by contracts from the NIH/NHLBI funding the four field centers.

It says right on the study how it was funded, that guy was being sarcastic and rude which is why he was downvoted. If there is a bias in this study, it's not immediately apparent from the funding.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago

I mostly agree with your point, just substitute "genetics" for the actual array of reasons why we have an obesity epidemic. Environment, upbringing, emotional state, level of education, financial resources, access to healthy food, sedentary lifestyle, disordered eating habits, trauma, medications, hormonal imbalances, physical and mental health, etc.

It's common sense that people trying to lose weight are more likely to reach for non-caloric products, and with other studies showing that most people who lose weight will gain it back within 5-10 years, it's makes this study's results obvious and proves nothing new unfortunately. Sweeteners very well could be an independent cause of weight gain, but until they account for all of the confounding factors that influence why people gain and lose weight, they won't be able to determine its true role in the matter.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

They're asking a valid question everyone should have in the back of their minds when reading study results, no need to eye roll. It's not some crazy conspiracy theory that corporations will happily fund studies in the hopes of cherry picking results in their favor. It's bad science and it happens all the time unfortunately. Sometimes bad science makes it into good journals, and it can take years to figure out that the study was flawed due to bias.

I was just reading this morning about the immunologist Jacques Benveniste who got his study published in Nature, he claimed that water had memory and that antibodies imprinted on diluted water. It was such a bold claim that it made international news and quacks everywhere ran with it. It took some investigation to determine the scientists Benveniste was working with were paid off by a company that sold homeopathic products. There's also the douche who got the MMR vaccine linked to autism. Despite the study being debunked, it's an idea that pervades mom groups across the globe and has resulted in a resurgence of measles that never had to happen.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago

I remember seeing those videos when they came out, and they were unsettling to say the least. I definitely have my thoughts on the case, but I think by far my strongest thought is that it's not up to randos like me to decide. I hate what the #metoo movement morphed into. There's someone else in here calling other SA survivors insane psychopaths, and this is the norm now. It's like most people think it's black and white, and that you can tell who's guilty or innocent from a couple of youtube videos. The reality is that unless you're the accuser or the accused, you don't know. And unless you're the judge and jury, it's not up to you nor should it be.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

J&J should have taken action years ago, they could have prevented so much suffering and death. This is a great article on the issue from back in 2020, explaining how J&J could still profit even if they only charged 25 cents per pill. Instead they charged several tens of thousands of dollars for a course of the medication, leaving 80% of people in the world who need treatment unable to access what might save their lives. It's unconscionable.

Thanks for speaking out and sharing. I'll do what little I can on my end and boycott this company until they do better. At this point I trust the no name brand over J&J anyways so it's an easy option.

view more: ‹ prev next ›