I think there’s something about publicly displaying pornography, even cropped, that signals to me that there’s a lack of concern for other people’s comfort and to some extent consent. I think I’d feel similarly if someone was listening to porn through a speaker in public and all you heard was moaning and noises, even with no explicit words. I understand transgressive behaviors, but the general sexualization of women in conjunction with the fact most these depictions skew quite young makes me extra uncomfortable. Maybe I was just sexualized and harassed quite young, and the people I’ve seen with this material tend to be the exact types to engage in predatory behavior, but it immediately makes me think the person is unsafe and doesn’t actually care about me or my body or my safety. You can argue that no one owes anyone anything, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume people with that kind of material know people may be uncomfortable with it and they just don’t care. That’s their right, but I just generally don’t vibe with people who enjoy doing things they know will make others uncomfortable, potentially for just the enjoyment of knowing they made others uncomfortable. If kissing your same sex partner makes people uncomfortable, obviously those people suck, but people who don’t want to see cropped porn just don’t want to see cropped porn. That seems relatively normal to me and a pretty easy thing to avoid, so anyone purposely doing that just strikes me as a little antisocial in a way I find off-putting. I understand that not everyone sees it that way, so I was just wondering why others were drawn to this.

Would you mind providing some insight into why you think this shirt goes hard? I’m a queer woman and personally find this kind of shirt off-putting. I’m not saying you shouldn’t be able to wear it, but I’ve seen the hoodie and car wrap versions and they never seemed cool to me either. Would you be able to explain what about it you like?

Yea completely likely there’s more going on. Sometimes kids with different needs can be more physical and it’s possible this kind of occurrence is seen as just part of the job. Not saying that’s acceptable, but it’s a possibility. With no other context though it’s not a great response if taken at face value.

I’m hoping this was cut off from a longer email, but if it was not she probably could’ve at least expected the parents to apologize on behalf of their kid, ensure they spoke to their kid about why it’s inappropriate to hit people, probably have the kid apologize, and depending on some other factors offer some kind of compensation for the glasses at least as a token gesture.

If your kid hit someone in the face hard enough to break their glasses and your only response is maybe they were hungry here’s how I can address that, I can potentially see why they might have done it in the first place.

I was about to defend the lack of contributions and then I kept reading. I have a handful of different accounts I use and some have the same look about them, but yea the investor thing is an obvious tell.

I had initially written a different comment instead of asking about music, but since you brought it up I felt like that’d be a good gauge. I think we should treat all AI devised work similarly. If support AI code we should support AI art. I do think a nuanced approach is understandable though. The following is what I had initially written for my previous comment:

I don’t think there is a “correct” way of doing a lot of the things AI is being asked to do. There are conventions which are followed, but plenty of people solve the same problems in different ways. Is an interaction a click, long press, or a swipe? Is something a button and a popup or a simple menu item? If there was a single correct way to solve coding questions, there would only be one operating system or one Lemmy app. I think a lot of people see code as a bunch of loops rather than a (hopefully) well planned solution to a problem. AI as it stands cannot actually understand a problem, but it can guess what a solution might look like based on similar problems. It takes those people’s solutions and assumptions and applies them and there is an assumption that the output is somehow inevitably that regardless of what or who would have been asked to solve the problem. It’s like saying there’s a “correct” photorealistic beach scene. Sure, plenty of people might have an idea of what that might look like, but everyone might have a different take. Are there palm trees? Are there birds? Where is the sun in the picture? I’m sure AI can generate a serviceable rendition of one, but it’s rendition is no more correct, and it certainly wasn’t done with an actual understanding of the elements of the scene. People aren’t asking AI to generate “if… else…” they are having AI design applications whole cloth and we end up seeing the results like that site that had its user list exposed on its front end or that have buttons that go nowhere. If there was one correct solution then AI either didn’t know it, didn’t understand it, or didn’t deliver it. Any of those options is a failure of the AI in that case, but the in my opinion true and scarier answer is that there is no correct way to do a lot of things AI is generating code for and that it is prone to mistakes for that reason.

If I may ask, what is your opinion on AI music? Do you think AI music is fine since there’s a set number of chords and the AI is just combining them in a statistically plausible way?

Linux is currently easier to use than Windows.

Claim in dispute

People who think otherwise are Windows users who think different equals worse.

In this case different is worse. If you’re used to a restaurant that serves carrots and I serve you peas you can argue that it’s not worse it’s just different. If you’re used to a restaurant that serves carrots and I tell you I don’t know what carrots are and I don’t have any alternative suggestions, but if you can find a store that provides what you’re talking about, appropriately transport that to my location and teach me how to cook them I will do that, then I think it’s fair to say I’m just a worse restaurant. What’s not comparable is easy of use. If you don’t understand how a lack of plug and play affects ease of use then there’s nothing I can say that will fundamentally bridge that gap.

Can I ask why you think that? AI has stolen code and art and is regurgitating both without any credit or attribution to the originators. What makes art different from code in your opinion?

I’m not the person you’re responding to, but if I have headphones or speakers or a mouse that aren’t plug and play on Linux which is what I’m used to on windows, I think it’s fair to say that my experience with Linux is less easy than with windows. The average user is not going to consider that a hardware issue, and it isn’t a hardware issue. If it’s a driver issue, I’d call that a software issue. Im glad to hear your grandma is not having issues with Linux, but as a Linux user I have to agree with the other commenter. A not insignificant amount of people will run up against some issues with Linux that the average user is likely not equipped to solve. I’m not saying that it means Linux is bad, but it really isn’t helpful to act like that’s a complete fabrication.

What a strange framing for the article. It mostly focuses on fascism, but manages to speak down to the people who saw this very obvious outcome. Maybe there’s a level of irony in not seeing, but if you’re using this “lib” framing, which I don’t necessarily agree with but conceding that point, maybe tie that back into how fascists ridicule their detractors. The resistance movement was substantial and full of lots of different people, but the writer points to “the shrillest” of them as though they were uppity women screaming into the void. They might not have accomplished a lot, but framing them as hysterical undercuts your point, even if you are admitting they were right. They were not hysterically correct, they were correct. I’m assuming there’s some irony in there, but even so, that is not enough work done in my opinion to be using that framing. If anyone recalls, the pussy hats were essentially in solidarity with women he open referred to molesting. Let’s see where we are now, oh he’s all over the Epstein files and refusing to release them. Fascists want you to think solidarity is cringe and that protesters are shrill. In reality solidarity is the only place we can truly derive strength from and protesting is one way we exercise our power and freedoms. I’d love if they had taken even a few sentences to mention those things instead of feeding into the fascist narrative about libs.

Also, AI continues to get more indistinguishable from actual images. If someone shares revenge porn but acts like it’s AI, the victim should not have to prove one way or the other. Currently, I think real or AI should be treated the same, but it’s possible I’m overlooking some unintended consequences of that.

In the article they quote someone who said he’s glad his code has been used by LLMs because he’s always been working to democratize tech, but I still struggle to see how this democratized it. A handful of companies control access to the AI and will use that as an excuse to keep more people out of tech. I’m glad he is ok with his work having been used, but plenty of people aren’t and wouldn’t want companies like Microsoft or Google profiling off them without compensation. I wonder if his opinion would change if he was one of the people let go and replaced by AI. If then he could see that this isn’t about democratizing things, but further concentrating wealth in the hands of these large corporations. Additionally, this has reduced friction for bad actors and slop generators. Is he glad his work makes people confident contributing to FOSS projects even if they have no idea what the quality of the code is like increasing overhead time for the people maintaining the project? I think a totally free AI for personal use in a society much better than ours would actually be acceptable, but we don’t live in that society, we live in this one. Any use of AI now is just rewarding these companies for a “move fast and break things” mentality that truly does not care what things end up being broken (the economy, ownership rights, individual families, the environment, professional integrity, trust in the open source community, etc).

We already have a great slogan. E pluribus unum. The idea that people from different places, backgrounds, and walks of life all come together for one cause, the betterment of all, that’s something to rally behind. The US hasn’t ever stood for that, but it’s something to strive for at least. What they’re offering has been rejected by the world time and time again and will continue to be. What they’re peddling is shameful and I’m disgusted that anyone is falling for this.

The link says it was over a fort having been seized. Though I’m not pro war, that seems like a pretty standard reason to go to war. It says it was not actually over a bucket.

I read the article and his issue with women is that they can’t be trusted and that their emotions change. This man is going to be completely unable to deal with children. Empathy and compassion and soothing are skills you hone in adult relationships and can use when you’re raising kids. There’s no way this guy deals with a kids outbursts or problems in a healthy way.

I didn’t call anyone rude, so it’s possible you ment to reply to someone else, but the OP I was referring to is the person who posted the meme. They are in my replies and appear to be as bad faith as I assumed. It seems like you and I are in agreement that Maduro was a bad guy but the US had no right to abduct him. OP was asking why he was a bad guy and the person I responded to correctly assessed he was asking in bad faith. It seems like you already know he’s a bad guy. My comment was left to support the position he was a bad guy, but I don’t want to engage with someone who obviously has no interest in talking about the facts. I just wanted to add the context of his actions because I’m sure many people don’t actually know why he was widely hated.

I don’t think training on all public information is super ethical regardless, but to the extent that others may support it, I understand that SO may be seen as fair game. To my knowledge though, all the big AIs I’m aware of have been trained on GitHub regardless of any individual projects license.

It’s not about proving individual code theft, it’s about recognizing the model itself is built from theft. Just because an AI image output might not resemble any preexisting piece of art doesn’t mean it isn’t based on theft. Can I ask what you used that was trained on just a projects documentation? Considering the amount of data usually needed for coherent output, I would be surprised if it did not need some additional data.

Yea, that’s also my experience. I liked it a lot more when they stuck to specific instances, but here we are. I just added the above because I’m sure there’s at least a handful of well intentioned people that legitimately don’t know and won’t be interested enough to look it up, even if they believe you. Americans at least, myself included, aren’t always up to date on foreign affairs, even when our government is doing the meddling.

I agree that OP is speaking in bad faith right now, so I’m just gonna leave this here for any passersby and not engage with OP directly.

From Wikipedias first section: Maduro was widely considered to have been leading an authoritarian government, characterized by electoral fraud, human rights abuses, corruption, censorship and severe economic hardship.[28] The United Nations (UN) and Human Rights Watch have alleged that under Maduro’s administration thousands of people died in extrajudicial killings and seven million Venezuelans were forced to flee the country due to economic collapse.