Floey

Are we allowed to kink shame whatever this is?

generalization that must be made

No such generalization has to be made, what?

If you make a rule

Why does saying someone did the right thing require you to make a rule?

Turns out having a value proposition beyond "we bundled a lot of software together that you can get on any distro" has allure.

Most politicians in the West don't actually care about humanitarian issues in China. That has almost nothing to do with why we don't play nice.

The liver is one of the most complex organs in the human body. It is responsible for a wide spectrum of toxin breakdown and chemical synthesis. The heart only needs to pump blood, though it's uptime is very impressive. If your liver stops working you won't die immediately but if your heart stops working your body will be starved of oxygen in mere minutes. Ultimately though what the heart does is mechanical and simple.

I wouldn't advocate for someone eating palm oil simply for their own personal health. However if you want to talk about the environment way more land is cleared for livestock than oil palm, even if you just focus on the locations where oil palm is grown. And palm oil is usually replacing animal fats in cooking due to it's saturated fat content, stuff like lard and ghee.

Something like Microsoft Word or Paint is not generative.

It is standard for publishers to make indemnity agreements with creatives who produce for them, because like I said, it's kinda difficult to prove plagiarism in the negative so a publisher doesn't want to take the risk of distributing works where originality cannot be verified.

I'm not arguing that we should change any laws, just that people should not use these tools for commercial purposes if the producers of these tools will not take liability, because if they refuse to do so their tools are very risky to use.

I don't see how my position affects the general public not using these tools, it's purely about the relationship between creatives and publishers using AI tools and what they should expect and demand.

Those analogies don't make any sense.

Anyway, as a publisher, if I cannot get OpenAI/ChatGPT to sign an indemnity agreement where they are at fault for plagiarism then their tool is effectively useless because it is really hard to determine something in not plagiarism. That makes ChatGPT pretty sus to use for creatives. So who is going to pay for it?

While I agree that using copyrighted material to train your model is not theft, text that model produces can very much be plagiarism and OpenAI should be on the hook when it occurs.

It's not hypocritical to care about some parts of copyright and not others. For example most people in the foss crowd don't really care about using copyright to monetarily leverage being the sole distributor of a work but they do care about attribution.

We are allergic to exploiting great solutions that already exist. Everyone wants to be "disruptive".

It reminds me of the investment that went into hyperloop stuff when our current best transit solutions aren't anywhere close to full saturation in the US. Similarly our current best green technologies are far from being fully exploited.

That's not important. I was illustrating that clearly if nobody ate chicken nobody would harvest chickens for food. Unless you think that the same amount of chickens will be harvested until the very last human gives up chicken then you have to acknowledge that the individual consumer does make a difference.