Errors such as this have been occurring by human hands for decades, while adversarial networks and language models capable of making the same error have only been available for a few years. As such, attributing all such errors to AI is foolish, as humans have already proven capable of making the same types of mistakes.

AI

This kinda shit is as old as computers.

vim something.log
esc
quit
exit
ctrl+x
ctrl+q
shushejehojwhatiwibaln):gufht;vfgs+_&f
reboot
nano something.log

Reminder to everyone to cancel their Hulu/Disney+ subscriptions if they still have them.

Focusing on one part of your response that really rubs me the wrong way, you believe artists don’t need to be compensated for their work?

In most cases, Spider-Man has no natural webs, and instead uses web shooters and a special web fluid he invented. That said, in pretty much every case, he also has fairly extreme super strength, to the point that it’s revealed within the comics that he’s almost always holding back.

Well, my main concern is the characterization of this as “piracy.” It’s not like image generating AIs are reproducing their actual films, right? Sure, it could be used to produce similar artwork to comics or stills or something, but it’s not gonna recreate the substance of the media. Yet, that’s how they’ve chosen to classify it, and I worry that it could set a precedent that could be used to sort of sidestep fair use protections.

She bullied you and threatened you? It means you’re an easy mark to her. Someone she knows she can use as she pleases and discard when she no longer has a need.

“Midjourney has made a calculated and profit-driven decision to offer zero protection for copyright owners even though Midjourney knows about the breathtaking scope of its piracy and copyright infringement.”

That… sounds worrying. It’s not hard to imagine a success here eventually being extended to criminalize any and all fan art as “piracy.”

Every autistic person I’ve met has had more empathy than every Republican I’ve met.

I have a Moto Razr. When opened, it has the form factor of a standard phone, but when closed, it’s a perfectly square little block. It’s honestly the best form factor I’ve had in a phone. It’s also a 2023 model, so I’ve had it for about a year and a half at this point, and the screen is still in perfect condition. There is a small ripple in the screen at the fold, but it’s only visible when shining direct light on it. You have to be looking for it under specific conditions.

If a “Ben Shapiro destroys” video doesn’t break any rules, then what’s the issue with it being monetized?

The issue, my friend, is that such videos often do break the rules on hateful content and on misinformation (though those rules may have also been removed after 2020), but are still able to be monetized regardless.

What I’m doubting here is the claim that this kind of content is somehow disproportionately pushed to people who have no interest in it.

Straw man. You may have had that argument with someone else, but no one on this comment chain ever made that claim but you.

My personal experience doesn’t support the claim that right-wing media is being disproportionately pushed to people who aren’t interested in it.

They didn’t ever make that claim, that’s just your straw man.

The person I was replying too didn’t mention Left or Right and neither did I.

Question: are you really this dense, or just acting in bad faith?

Silencing your ideological opponents is ethically and morally inferior and I don’t care what your supposed motivation is.

“I want to eliminate all of insert racial or religious slur.”

“That’s bad.”

“I want to stop that person from saying and doing that.”

"That’s exactly as bad.*

Ah yes, the classic “lOOk aT tHE TOlEraNt LEfT” argument.

Or is it maybe this one?

Or maybe it’s both. Ya know, because they’re the same argument. This exact argument has taken so many forms in the past decade, and it’s always founded on the same fallacy. It’s a false equivalency.

The moment I click on a “Ben Shapiro destroys” video, sure - I get plenty more in my feed. But they also go away when I stop engaging.

Uh huh. Which means they’re being pushed to people they think will engage, which means they’re being monetized or are at least considered monetizable if the creator isn’t eligible. Like they said.

In before this creates a safe space for transphobia and bigotry but does nothing to address shit like that one YouTuber that recently got permanently banned because she knocked over a lamp their automated systems flagged it as “child abuse content.”

Can confirm. My friend is in a band and I’m featured on a track that used to be on Spotify. I can’t remember the exact numbers, but the listened stat was respectable, but the payout? I think it was about $0.16.

Alright, I’m done with your lying and moving goalposts. I’m gonna do what I always do with people who act in bad faith and block you.

But first, I’ll say, I cited the Mali civil war because it’s ongoing. They were also one of two parties in the Sino-Vietnamese war after Vietnam invaded Cambodia. This was in 1979, with ongoing smaller conflicts until the 90s.

They also took control of the Paracel Islands during the Vietnam War, 1974.

And while neither of these were started by China, your original stance didn’t include that little asterisk, you just moved the goalposts when you were proven wrong by the proud, public admission of Chinese officials.

While China may not have been involved in many conflicts, or started any of them themselves, neither of these classifiers were a part of your original position, and you only started shifting when people proved you wrong. You’re a petulant child who can’t stand to say “I was wrong.”

You included the Yemeni Civil War. Same situation.
Nice try #1.

You didn’t say “no war that they started,” you said “no wars, that’s a fact,” which I was responding to and proving false.
Nice try #2.