ClamDrinker

Ironically voting for parties like AfD is probably the most illusioned vote you could make. The other parties are full of shit too but there it's the byproduct not the main feature.

I feel you in avoiding public transit. That's where my hate comes from as well. And yes, many people that do these things have have excuses. Because they need to, to justify doing their business in a place where their habit unavoidably harms and frustrates other people. I hate the fact we still allow that so readily as society. Or at least we should restrict it further to the point a normal person doesn't have to be bothered by people like that in public. It undermines public services to an extent.

But after I no longer needed to use public transit, I did start to see things in a slightly different light. And that's the only thing I wanted to say. People that are conscientious about enjoying any kind of mind altering substances will choose to do so safely and harmlessly outside of public, or in designated places like clubs specifically for that substance. Harm reduction must be central to substance use. And I know now that many people have that mentality. But that mentality is somewhat threatened exactly because they make sure nobody is bothered by them. It causes the experience to be defined by those people in public places, the loud minority.

I hate public smokers with a passion. But you must realize that you have effectively zero exposure to people that contain their smoke by doing it at home or using a method without smoke production. And there could be a lot more of those.

The last line is especially golden for me since I live in the Netherlands so we have plenty of weed being smoked but the vast vast majority of public smoke hinderance is from tobacco smokers. If they decide to smoke in public they have absolutely no shame and will literally do it at places like bus stops and just outside restaurants. Weed smokers rarely do that here. So if I were to believe you it seems to just be correlated to people with shitty attitudes rather than the substance.

But there's no denying that if everyone would drop alcohol for weed, it would be better. Not because weed is harmless but because alcohol is pretty terrible health wise.

This is an issue for the AI user though. And I do agree that needs to be more conscious in people's minds. But I think time will change that. Perhaps when the photo camera came out there were some shmucks that took pictures of people's artworks and claimed it as their own because the novelty of the technology allowed that for a bit, but eventually those people are properly differentiated from people properly using it.

That would be true if they used material that was paywalled. But the vast majority of the training information used is publicly available. There's plenty of freely available books and information that you only require an internet connection for to access, and learn from.

Your first point is misguided and incorrect. If you've ever learned something by 'cramming', a.k.a. just repeating ingesting material until you remember it completely. You don't need the book in front of you anymore to write the material down verbatim in a test. You still discarded your training material despite you knowing the exact contents. If this was all the AI could do it would indeed be an infringement machine. But you said it yourself, you need to trick the AI to do this. It's not made to do this, but certain sentences are indeed almost certain to show up with the right conditioning. Which is indeed something anyone using an AI should be aware of, and avoid that kind of conditioning. (Which in practice often just means, don't ask the AI to make something infringing)

This would be a good point, if this is what the explicit purpose of the AI was. Which it isn't. It can quote certain information verbatim despite not containing that data verbatim, through the process of learning, for the same reason we can.

I can ask you to quote famous lines from books all day as well. That doesn't mean that you knowing those lines means you infringed on copyright. Now, if you were to put those to paper and sell them, you might get a cease and desist or a lawsuit. Therein lies the difference. Your goal would be explicitly to infringe on the specific expression of those words. Any human that would explicitly try to get an AI to produce infringing material... would be infringing. And unknowing infringement... well there are countless court cases where both sides think they did nothing wrong.

You don't even need AI for that, if you followed the Infinite Monkey Theorem and just happened to stumble upon a work falling under copyright, you still could not sell it even if it was produced by a purely random process.

Another great example is the Mona Lisa. Most people know what it looks like and if they had sufficient talent could mimic it 1:1. However, there are numerous adaptations of the Mona Lisa that are not infringing (by today's standards), because they transform the work to the point where it's no longer the original expression, but a re-expression of the same idea. Anything less than that is pretty much completely safe infringement wise.

You're right though that OpenAI tries to cover their ass by implementing safeguards. Which is to be expected because it's a legal argument in court that once they became aware of situations they have to take steps to limit harm. They can indeed not prevent it completely, but it's the effort that counts. Practically none of that kind of moderation is 100% effective. Otherwise we'd live in a pretty good world.

Honestly, that's why open source AI is such a good thing for small creatives. Hate it or love it, anyone wielding AI with the intention to make new expression will be much more safe and efficient to succeed until they can grow big enough to hire a team with specialists. People often look at those at the top but ignore the things that can grow from the bottom and actually create more creative expression.

Let bro touch some feathers man 😭

Every piece of legislature ever needs to deal with the emotions of it's subjects. An unemphatic, but cold hard rational law, will be nothing less of tyrannical most of the time. Laws are for humans to follow, and humans have emotions that need to be understood for a law to be successful and supported to last into the future. A law that isn't supported by it's subjects eventually leads to revolution (big and small).

How logic and rational a person can be is highly dependent on their emotional intelligence. You might be able to suppress your emotions when there is no stress at all, but if you cave during a stressful situation and start lashing out, that does impact your overall intelligence. Intelligence is just the collection of behaviors and training that make you effective at doing what you want to do, and being rational and logical is definitely good, but not the end of it all.

You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence Because what you are describing is exactly what I was saying. High emotional intelligence is not relying blindly on your emotions like republicans do, that's what low emotional intelligence looks like.

People forget emotional intelligence is also just as much if not more important than logical intelligence when attempting to change the world for the better. And both Trump and Musk rank among the lowest of low there.