FlowVoid @ FlowVoid @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

466

Joined

2 yr. ago

She murdered seven infants. What more information would you need in this case?

Would you punish her or sentence her at all? If so, how?

How about a one size fits one solution?

Lucy Letby was found guilty of murdering seven infants. Would you send her to prison?

What do you plan to do with murderers and rapists?

Exile is no longer an option, because no other country will allow them in. And everyone has already been told from a young age that murder and rape are unacceptable.

So you're fine with seeing some people in cages. You just don't want to see SBF in a cage.

I can't stop anyone from doing something I don't like.

But historically, there have been plenty of solutions to stop someone from doing something society doesn't like. For example, execution. Torture. Punishing their relatives. Exile. Prison. And asking them nicely to please stop.

Of those, I think prison is the best option. Putting someone in a cage may seem wrong, but letting them freely murder and rape innocent people is more wrong.

Something doesn't have to be 100% effective to work.

Quitting smoking works to prevent cancer. That doesn't mean it is 100% effective in preventing cancer.

Of course it works. If you threaten someone with jail when they do X, then they are less likely to do X.

To take one example, several states have recently threatened doctors with jail if they perform abortions. As a result, obstetricians are now fleeing those states to avoid being prosecuted for performing their normal medical duties. If jail had no deterrent effect, then obstetricians would stay put and keep doing what they've always been doing, including performing safe abortions.

To take another example, several state have recently decriminalized marijuana, thus reduces the risk of jail for sale and possession. As a result, marijuana is more commonly consumed in public and far more commonly sold in public. If jail had no deterrent effect, there would be no change in the number of businesses selling marijuana.

A prompt is not sufficient, in fact some image copyrights were revoked from Kristina Kashtanova when it was revealed that her involvement in generating the images was limited to providing AI prompts.

She was only allowed to keep copyrights for work with more active involvement, namely text and layout.

Students don't always ask for things that they benefit from. If the school improved the bus routes or auditorium and some random student exclaimed "I didn't ask for this!", that student would rightly be ignored.

These decisions are best left to parents, not students. And the parents elect the board. Considering how long this has been going on, parents have had plenty of opportunity to elect new board members if this wasn't what they wanted.

You need to exert creative control over the product. If you created an appropriate image for the background, that would probably be enough. If you slapped the same decal on everything produced by an AI, that would probably not be enough.

Remember, AI generated work is in the public domain. So your question is identical to "Can I take a public domain work and alter it sufficiently to claim copyright on the product?". The answer is yes, provided you make sufficient changes.

Most of the time, human guidance occurs before the AI generates anything. For example, ChatGPT was trained with human involvement, but most of what it writes will not be reviewed and edited by a human.

However, an identifiable component of the text must have been written by a human author in order to claim copyright. So most of what ChatGPT writes cannot be copyrighted. It would only be eligible for copyright if a human reviewed and edited what ChatGPT had written.

There is an underlying tension in that copyright is explicitly meant to be an incentive for creative efforts made by humans (who would otherwise be doing something else), and AI is generally designed to replace humans engaged in creative efforts.

It's true, some folks just want to watch the world burn.

Schools often spend money on things that are only meant to make their students feel better, like pep rallies and school dances. If the students prefer their new mascot, I don't think this is particularly stupid or wasteful in comparison.

We are perfectly capable of working on more than one thing at a time.

No. For example, most people who pirate software, movies, and music do not sell anything. But they are still violating copyright.

You don't need a license to learn from a story, but if learning requires you first to make an enduring copy of the story on your laptop then you could be violating copyright.

And neural nets generally require a local enduring copy of their training data, which means they too could be violating copyright.

I am responding to the suggestion that only high-density communities are sustainable. That's simply not true. It is possible for people to live sustainably in either low density or high density communities.

Which in turn implies that the problem with suburbs is not necessarily their density, but other factors.

You have a very US-centric perspective on "sustainability".

There are plenty of sustainable communities all over the world, today as in the past, that consist of 100s to 1000s of people living in low density housing within reach of a small center.

Some of their garages have two cars, some have only a moped, and some have no vehicles at all.

They are generally rural, not suburban. Not all are near big box stores. Those with big box stores existed before the big box stores arrived, and they would continue to exist if the big box stores left.

Their existence does not necessarily depend on support from higher density regions, especially in parts of the world where higher density regions will ignore their requests anyway.