That seems bad but also not super relevant to the point under discussion! Unless your point is that it's bad when a cultural commons is exploited for business profits -- in which case, I agree, but, well...
I know you're right, I just want to dream sometimes that things could be better :(
Truth be told, I'm not a huge fan of the sort of libertarian argument in the linked article (not sure how well "we don't need regulations! the market will punish websites that host bad actors via advertisers leaving!" has borne out in practice -- glances at Facebook's half of the advertising duopoly), and smaller communities do notably have the property of being much easier to moderate and remove questionable things compared to billion-user social websites where the sheer scale makes things impractical. Given that, I feel like the fediverse model of "a bunch of little individually-moderated websites that can talk to each other" could actually benefit in such a regulatory environment.
But, obviously the actual root cause of the issue is platforms being allowed to grow to insane sizes and monopolize everything in the first place (not very useful to make them liable if they have infinite money and can just eat the cost of litigation), and to put it lightly I'm not sure "make websites more beholden to insane state laws" is a great solution to the things that are actually problems anyway :/
I have never been a huge fan of most of the scp stuff (not that it's bad, it's just not really my thing), but I have reread that series several times at this point, it's so good!
Is this a correct characterisation of the EA community? That they all harbour anti-abortion sentiment but for whatever reason permit abortion?
I actually wouldn't be surprised if this were the case -- the whole schtick of a lot of these people is "worrying about increasing the number of future possibly-existing humans, even at the cost of the suffering of actually-existing humans", so being anti-abortion honestly seems not too far out of their wheelhouse?
Like I think in the EAverse you can just kinda go "well this makes people have less kids which means less QALYs therefore we all know it's obviously bad and I don't really need to justify it." (with bonus internet contrarian points if you are justifying some terrible thing using your abstract math, because that means you're Highly Decoupled and Very Smart.) See also the quote elsewhere in this thread about the guy defending child marriage for similar reasons.
I... think (hope??) the "*" is representing filled in squares in the crossword and that he has a grid of characters. But in that case the problem is super easy, you just need to print out HTML table tags between each character and color the table cell black when the character is "*". It takes like 10 minutes to solve without chatgpt already. :/
When you put it that way, I can't help but notice the parallels to Google's generative AI search feature, which suffers from a similar problem of "why would people keep writing posts as the source material for your AI if no one is gonna read it other than the AI web scraper"
it’s time to learn emacs, vim, or (best of all) an emacs distro that emulates vim
I was gonna say... good old qa....q 20@a does the job just fine thanks :p
Ars technica comments consistently seem to have the worst takes on ai art I've ever seen, it's nuts
as someone who never really understood The Big Deal With SPAs (aside from, like, google docs or whatever) i'm at least taking solace in the fact that like a decade later people seem to be coming around to the idea that, wait, this actually kind of sucks
200fifty
joined 2 years ago
I mean, it seems like you're reading my argument as a defense of copyright as a concept. I'm ambivalent on the goodness or badness of copyright law in the abstract. Like a lot of laws, it's probably not the ideal way to fix the issue it was designed to solve, and it comes with (many) issues of its own, but that doesn't necessarily mean we'd be better off if we just got rid of it wholesale and left the rest of society as is. (We would probably be left with excitingly new and different problems.)
As I see it, the actual issue at hand with all of this is that people are exploiting the labor/art/culture of others in order to make a profit for themselves at the expense of the people affected. Sometimes copyright is a tool to facilitate that exploitation, and sometimes it's a tool that protects people from it. To paraphrase Dan Olson, the problem is what people are doing to others, not that the law they're using to do it is called "copyright."