[–] 9 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

Every law is, fundamentally, a restriction on someone's freedom. The key justification for why that's okay is that the law protects one or more people from harm in the process. So in this case the question is "who is being harmed when an AI generates this particular configuration of pixels? How are they being harmed?"

When you dig into that it's more complicated than the simple knee-jerk "that stuff is just plain bad!" Attitude that has been drummed into the general public.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [+] -8 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

    And so, exactly as I predicted, we've got commenters coming out to defend the poor innocent copyright cartels against those awful people pirating their stuff. Violating sacred EULAs, even, what monsters.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 10 points 15 hours ago (12 children)

    A while back I saw a thread in a piracy community that was cheering some other lawsuit against an AI company for similar reasons, so I wouldn't bet. The anti-AI sentiment is quite strong in these parts.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago

    I'm thinking that gender and sexuality aren't even a simple spectrum, they're a multi-dimensional space. There are some blobby fuzzy-bordered regions of that space that have traditionally been called "Man" and "Woman", but the more we look into it the more complicated it all gets and the more arbitrary that partitioning becomes. We're already starting to see that there may be portions of that space that likely don't belong to either category, or where the categories overlap, so I'm of the opinion that treating them as super important might be a bad idea that's bound to lead to heartbreak and confusion.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: next ›