Laticauda

I didn't know if they had a dedicated account for it or not, and there are scripts for archiving comments just like there are scripts for deleting them. I'm not blaming the OP of anything, if they don't want to do that then ultimately that's their prerogative.

I'm grown up and games have been consistently stellar my whole life, including now. I just happen to be good at choosing games I know I'll like 🤷

This popped up at the top the instant I first opened Lemmy after not browsing it for a few days.

Never said they were. But they were willing to offer the information at some point, would be nice for people who might need it if they provided an alternative source to find the information they'd already been willing to give in the past, if they were still willing to provide it. Hell, they can charge for it if they want, though considering Lemmy's hard on for FOSS, they'd probably get dog piled for it harder than I did in this thread if they did.

I never said they were obligated to, but it would be nice if people had an alternative to give the traffic to and also it wouldn't be leaving anyone who needs the info in the lurch, if they were willing to put that info elsewhere.

Uh, squash? I think that one is associated with rich white folk the most and has a kinda silly name.

Iirc the reason it changed was because it's a more accurate description of what the material contains, and because actual pornography is supposed to be consentual by nature, even when it's depicting an imitation of a non-consensual act. However, kids are incapable of consenting. Saying that videos of them is porn feels too much like it puts it on the same level as adult porn, when they're not at all the same. If someone released a video of someone being raped I think most people would consider it distasteful to call a real rape video "pornography".

I can understand that reasoning tbh.

Huh, for me it's more like wuhmen vs wohman.

Wait there are people who pronounce women with an i?

Ai isn't interpreting anything. This isn't the sci-fi style of ai that people think of, that's general ai. This is narrow AI, which is really just an advanced algorithm. It can't create new things with intent and design, it can only regurgitate a mix of pre-existing stuff based on narrow guidelines programmed into it to try and keep it coherent, with no actual thought or interpretation involved in the result. The issue isn't that it's derivative, the issue is that it can only ever be inherently derivative without any intentional interpretation or creativity, and nothing else.

Even collage art has to qualify as fair use to avoid copyright infringement if it's being done for profit, and fair use requires it to provide commentary, criticism, or parody of the original work used (which requires intent). Even if it's transformative enough to make the original unrecognizable, if the majority of the work is not your own art, then you need to get permission to use it otherwise you aren't automatically safe from getting in trouble over copyright. Even using images for photoshop involves creative commons and commercial use licenses. Fanart and fanfic is also considered a grey area and the only reason more of a stink isn't kicked up over it regarding copyright is because it's generally beneficial to the original creators, and credit is naturally provided by the nature of fan works so long as someone doesn't try to claim the characters or IP as their own. So most creators turn a blind eye to the copyright aspect of the genre, but if any ever did want to kick up a stink, they could, and have in the past like with Anne Rice. And as a result most fanfiction sites do not allow writers to profit off of fanfics, or advertise fanfic commissions. And those are cases with actual humans being the ones to produce the works based on something that inspired them or that they are interpreting. So even human made derivative works have rules and laws applied to them as well. Ai isn't a creative force with thoughts and ideas and intent, it's just a pattern recognition and replication tool, and it doesn't benefit creators when it's used to replace them entirely, like Hollywood is attempting to do (among other corporate entities). Viewing AI at least as critically as actual human beings is the very least we can do, as well as establishing protection for human creators so that they can't be taken advantage of because of AI.

I'm not inherently against AI as a concept and as a tool for creators to use, but I am against AI works with no human input being used to replace creators entirely, and I am against using works to train it without the permission of the original creators. Even in the artist/writer/etc communities it's considered to be a common courtesy to credit other people/works that you based a work on or took inspiration from, even if what you made would be safe under copyright law regardless. Sure, humans get some leeway in this because we are imperfect meat creatures with imperfect memories and may not be aware of all our influences, but a coded algorithm doesn't have that excuse. If the current AIs in circulation can't function without being fed stolen works without credit or permission, then they're simply not ready for commercial use yet as far as I'm concerned. If it's never going to be possible, which I just simply don't believe, then it should never be used commercially period. And it should be used by creators to assist in their work, not used to replace them entirely. If it takes longer to develop, fine. If it takes more effort and manpower, fine. That's the price I'm willing to pay for it to be ethical. If it can't be done ethically, then imo it shouldn't be done at all.

Humans drink human milk, and the milk of other animals. Animals drink the milk of their own species on a regular basis. I will never understand why people get hung up on this in Zootopia as if drinking the milk of other creatures OR the same species is something humans and animals don't ever do in real life. It's like y'all just want it to be weird.