![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/d3d059e3-fa3d-45af-ac93-ac894beba378.png)
True. I didn’t become a commie until I was almost thirty, young me was so idealistic.
True. I didn’t become a commie until I was almost thirty, young me was so idealistic.
tHeSe MeN wErE vIoLeNt TyRaNtS
The kulaks and the monarchists and the nazi collaboraters deserved it. Communists have been vindicated by history every single time.
You could put the Sega CD or 32X into this meme and it would still work, the Dreamcast was just the last in a series of flops.
The fact that nobody has done “screen in a controller” since Nintendo toyed around with a handful of Gamecube-GBA games is a crime. It was a cool ass idea that got displaced by internet lobbies before it got off the ground.
edit: yeah I know Wii U too but that’s not what I mean, that’s something else.
If the Dreamcast hadn’t had the misfortune of coming out during the objectively best console generation, it would have done fine - but also, if it hadn’t been the latest in a series of flops (Sega CD, 32x, Saturn), then maybe the Dreamcast’s failure wouldn’t have driven Sega out of the console market. Sega struck gold with the Genesis and they just couldn’t replicate it, RIP to a real one,
Why would I want my prompt to be private if I don’t want to use the result in some malicious way
Do you think that the only thing people use AI for is making deepfakes and CSAM? AFAIK the most common use is generating porn. Now, I don’t think generating regular porn is “malicious”, but I certainly understand why most people (self included) want to keep what they generate private.
I suppose you would also be fine with every one of your google searches being in a database? Every video you’ve ever watched, even the ones in private browser tabs?
introducing the AI transparency act, which requires every generative prompt to be registered in a government database
How many times can I say “social context” before you grok it? There’s a difference between a picture taken by a doctor for medical reasons and one taken by a pedo as CSAM. If doctors and parents are being nailed to the cross for totally legitimate images then that strikes me as evidence that the law is too rigid and needs more flexibility, not the other way around.
Who will be the judge?
The same people that should judge every criminal proceeding. Of course it’s not going to be perfect, but this is a case of not letting perfect be the enemy of good. Allowing generated or drawn images of sexualized children to exist has external costs to society in the form of normalizing the concept.
The argument that making generated or drawn CSAM illegal is bad because the feds might plant such images on an activist is incoherent. If you’re worried about that, why not worry that they’ll plant actual CSAM on your computer?
there cannot be developed a scale or spectrum to judge where the fake stops and real starts
Ah, but my definition didn’t at all rely on whether or not the images were “real” or “fake”, did it? An image is not merely an arrangement of pixels in a jpeg, you understand - an image has a social context that tells us what it is and why it was created. It doesn’t matter if there were real actors or not, if it’s an image of a child and it’s being sexualized, it should be considered CSAM.
And yes I understand that that will always be a subjective judgement with a grey area, but not every law needs to have a perfectly defined line where the legal becomes the illegal. A justice system should not be a computer program that simply runs the numbers and delivers an output.
Hot take: yes. All art exists in a social context, and if the social context of your art is “this is a child and they are sexualized” then your art should be considered CSAM. Doesn’t matter if it’s in an anime style, a photorealistic style, or if it’s a movie where the children are fully clothed for the duration but are sexualized by the director as in Cuties - CSAM, CSAM, CSAM.
Do you not consider photoshopping an actual person’s photos into porn abusive towards that person?
Religion is primarily a social phenomenon, so as long as people want to belong to a larger group then there will always be people willing to believe whatever non-falsifiable truths they need to in order to belong to one.
If even one person is dumb and rich enough to buy it, then it’s worth it to make the website to try to sell it to them. And we live in a world with many such people.
Do you want mutant shark people? Because this is how you get mutant shark people.
IIRC Valve issues shares to its employees, but the details aren’t public. There are a bunch of different corporate ownership schemes out there that it could potentially be.
As we all know, getting more militantly progressive because you see the repeated failures of the liberal worldview is exactly the same as getting more conservative because you own more property 🤡