EatATaco

The people who created the modern form of chess are long since dead, so they don't have any idea of my existence at all. Yet I still enjoy playing chess. Should I not enjoy the game because the people who created it don't care about me at all?

This is the second poster here who can't seem to understand that there is a whole world of things between "pretending nothing is wrong" and acting like a child by calling people "edge lord."

Last time I checked, on my front page, there was an article from the NY times about how x is spreading misinformation and musk seems to be part of it. yet they managed to point out this problem without using the term edge lord. Is this shocking to you?

I strongly disagree, but this is completely unrelated to what I said.

Can you really see nothing other than "pretending nothing is wrong" and "calling musk an edge lord?"

I see the media calling out the faults regularly regularly without needing to act like ..well, an edge lord.

Its vice, their whole brand is edgy. Calling Elon an edgelord is very on brand for them.

I've come across this source before and don't recall being so turned off by the tone. If this is on brand for them, then my criticism is not limited to the author.

Sure, but women are disproportionately affected by this. You’re making the “all lives matter” argument of AI porn

You have a point, but I disagree. Black lives matter is effectively saying that black lives currently don't matter (mainly when it comes to policing). All lives matter is being dismissive of that claim because no one really believes that white lives don't matter to police. Pointing to the fact that there are male victims too is not dismissive of the fact that women are the primary victims of this. It's almost the opposite and ignoring males is being dismissive of victims.

People should be taking sides on this.

Sorry, wasn't clear on that point. What I was saying here is this will make people take sides based on their politics rather than on the merits of whether it's wrong in and of itself.

i really don’t think it was necessary.

Neither was her speaking for swift, nor all of women kind, nor only making it about women, nor calling musk an edge lord. You seem to be making the same argument as me.

I think it’s because they synthesized the voice and then called it George Carlin and sold it as a “New Comedy Special” it begins to fall into the category of Bootleg.

Except this is untrue. They were very open that this wasn't Carlin, but an ai learning from him and mimicking his style.

The better comparison is that to an Elvis impersonator who sings song they themselves wrote explicitly in the style of Elvis and try to sound like him.

I think ai changes the game and we need to rethink the laws, but I don't see this case lasting long in court, unless there is some law I don't know about.

AI fake is the high-tech equivalent of gluing a cutout of your crush’s face onto a playboy centerfold.

At first I read that as "cousin's face" and I was like "bru, that's oddly specific." Lol

God what a garbage article:

On X—which used to be called Twitter before it was bought by billionaire edgelord Elon Musk

I mean, really? The guy makes my skin crawl, but what a hypocritically edgy comment to put into an article.

And then zero comment from Taylor Swift in it at all. She is basically just speaking for her. Not only that, but she anoints herself spokesperson for all women...while also pretty conspicuously ignoring that men can be victims of this too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending non consensual ai porn in the least, and I assume the author and I are mostly in agreement about the need for something to be done about it.

But it's trashy politically charged and biased articles like this that make people take sides on things like this. Imo, the author is contributing to the problems of society she probably wants to fix.

Just about all of them where the government is spying on their residents. Unless you think it’s alright if the government does it?

This is your first response to me. Can you explain to me how I could have possible figured out what you just said from your initial post? You've moved so far from your first post, without at any point admitting at any point that you were wrong or maybe misinterpreted something.

Stop trying to be right and start trying to figure out what's right. You are clearly smart enough to do so.

I don’t understand how this issue can have context without mention of the state.

Sure, which is why I challenged them over jurisdiction on their false claim that you could take a picture wherever you want. You even seem to agree with me that that is not the case.

Could I post their photo in a random online forum claiming they have done something illegal? Nope?

Because this is libel. You are allowed to say whatever you want, "unless it breaches some other law." Just like your limits on what pictures you can take are not "just because you can" but "unless it breaches some other law."

It all comes down to an expectation of privacy. You have none in a public space as what you are doing everyone else can see.

And the implication of their initial point, in the context of the submission, is that this type of "photography" would be allowed because "you can" and I argue that this would already be protected under current law that there is an expectation of privacy behind in your home. Like in many (it not all?) I can't take a picture of you in your home through a window even if I can see you from a public space, because of the expectation of privacy.

To search my car lawfully in the US you’d require a warrant. Doesn’t matter if my car is parked on the street. But you could lawfully take a photo of me in that car pretty much anywhere in “public” and that would also be considered lawful.

The poster said nothing about the state. They were talking about privacy. They gave a long list of things that we aren't allowed to do even if we are "able" to do them, and then made the false claim that we are allowed to take pictures "just because we can." Maybe they have beliefs about the line being in the wrong place for other things, but this submission is about a type of picture, and the poster specifically mentioned taking pictures. So me talking about picture makes perfect sense, bringing in the state searching your car makes next to zero sense.

The context of the poster you responded to’s point is that the government decides and makes a line between what is private and what isn’t.

The poster said absolutely zero about the state. None. Zilch. Zip. When you accused me of narrowing the scope, you were actually projecting your expansion of the scope.

But make no mistake about it, if a cop walks by your car and sees a dead body in the back seat, they don't need to get a warrant to search your car...because there is no expectation of privacy...which is, of course, actually what we are talking about.