This is so funny

EDIT:

One recipe it dubbed “aromatic water mix” would create chlorine gas. The bot recommends the recipe as “the perfect nonalcoholic beverage to quench your thirst and refresh your senses”.

"Serve chilled and enjoy the refreshing fragrance,” it says, but does not note that inhaling chlorine gas can cause lung damage or death.

😆 😆

This should be higher up

The law doesn’t even say it’s okay. What FaceDeer is referring to is that copyright infringement is a different category of crime than theft, which is defined as pertaining to physical property. It’s a meaningless point because, as you said, this isn’t a courtroom and we aren’t lawyers and the concept of intellectual property theft is well understood.

It’s a thing engineers and lawyers often seem to do, to take the way terms are used in a particular professional jargon and assume that that usage is “the real” usage.

Bit of a non-sequitor, that would be an anecdote and not a study. But yeah I would say that those things would violate social norms. I don’t know if I would agree that conservative people are more likely to violate those norms, which is presumably your point. Take a look at the history of political assassinations in the United States or in Europe, for example. Political violence does not belong uniquely to conservatives.

I think actually pretty much by definition that conservatives are MORE concerned with social norms. That’s kind of one of the primary traits of conservativism. I think a pretty good argument could be made that the Tumpist people you’re referring to do not so much represent a conservative point of view as much as a fascist or ultra-nationalist one, which explains why they will violate certain norms pertaining to peaceful electoral processes, while strongly maintaining other norms, like heterosexual nuclear families or religious observances or certain expectations of gender expression, etc.

I’m sure you’re aware that the manner in which legal bureaucracies define terms is a form of jargon that differentiates legal language from actual language.

They have separate categories of laws to deal with them because physical property is different than intellectual property. The same reason they use a different category of law to deal with identity theft.

I like what you’re saying so I’m not trying to be argumentative, but to be clear copyright protections don’t simply protect those who make a living from their productions. You are protected by them regardless of whether you intend to make any money off your work and that protection is automatic. Just to expand upon what @grue was saying.

What do you mean there is no debate? You’re debating it right now.

Plenty of artists view it as theft when people take their work and use it for their own ends without their permission. Not everyone, sure. But it’s a bit odd to state so emphatically that there is no debate.

That’s your opinion. The contrary opinion would be that copyright infringement is the theft of intellectual property, which many people view as of equal substantiality to physical property.

You can disagree with the concept of intellectual property but clearly there’s an alternative to your point of view that you can’t just dismiss by declaration.

It doesn’t matter how you recreate an image, if you recreate someone else’s work that is a violation of copyright.

Stealing someone’s style is a different matter.

Well said. Copyright is whatever, but the disrespect shown here is remarkable.

Amazon’s Data Re-Identification Services now free with Amazon Prime!

Indeed.

I’m afraid that even laws aren’t the root cause. I’m pretty concerned about the infrastructure we have allowed to be built around us, and what we will continue to allow to be built going forward. Even if we had strong privacy laws, laws are fickle things. The only thing separating us from full on Orwellian dystopia is some bad policy changes, the technology is already in place and we bought it on purpose.

You’ve got studies suggesting that conservatives are less accepting of social norms?

He was a cool guy. His influence will continue to be felt.

There is significant middle ground between loving something and finding it miserable. And yeah, believe it or not, but plenty of tradespeople take pride in their work.

Nah man. There’s nothing inherently shitty about work. Work is energy put to use. My garden is work. Painting the house is work. And my job, which is growing food, is work. And I really like my job. I like being outside, I like solving problems, interacting with plants and animals. The hours can be intense at times, and I’ve currently got blisters on the palms of my fucking hands, and I make very little money, but it is work and it is not shitty.

The problem is not that work sucks, the problem is that the types of work and the environments in which work is done in our industrialized, financialized, capitalist society are often alienating, dehumanzing, useless, destructive, boring, and pointless.

People finding work “miserable” is not an inherent property of work (which is doing something useful) or even of jobs (which is doing something supposedly useful for money). It’s an indication that something has gone wrong with our society.

ove of the craft,

…oh…now I see why they are on strike.

😆

I get much of my news from podcasts. Democracy Now, Popular Front, Canadaland, the Guardian, stuff like that.

I prefer honey. But what I do most mornings is toast with peanut butter, flax meal, hemp hearts, and sunflower seeds.

Your logic is flawed in that derivative works are not a violation of copyright. Generally, copyright protects a text or piece of art from being reproduced. Specific characters and settings can be protected by copyright, concepts and themes cannot. People take inspiration from the work of others all the time. Lots of TV shows or whatever are heavily informed by previous works, and that’s totally fine.

Copyright protects the reproduction of other peoples work, and the reuse of their specific characters. It doesn’t protect style, themes, concepts, etc. IE. the things that an AI is trying to derive. So like if you trained your LLM only on Tolkien such that it always told stories about Gandalf and the hobbits, then that would be a problem.