Teils13

Can i call all north americans terrorists, since the KKK is a terrorist organization with several local supporters ? Are the KKK north americans ? Yes (dunno if they accept canadians or other whites though, but probably almost all are USA, hamas probably has non palestinians too). Are they terrorists ? Yes.

Depends on how you consider several subjective factors, including political, economical, technological and ownership/control.

Closest to lemmy might be TILvids (Today I Learned videos) → https://tilvids.com

They use Peertube protocol (FOSS), are sustained by donations (patreon), and there is a few big FOSS influencers there already, like the french developer from The Linux Experiment.

There is a few corporations that are pretty much national versions of youtube, like Nikoniko (Japan), Rutube (Russia), VK (Russia), Bilibili (China), Aparat (Iran) etc that would be nice if they were competitors cause they already have all the infrastructure in place to receive everything in youtube in one swop if we neeeded, but alas they obviously will not be taken. (sorry nikoniko)

There is some minor corporations like Odysee, Rumble, Dailymotion, Vimeo. But they are still private profit-driven corporations, so they can go the youtube way eventually. There is some rumours that Tiktok might launch a separate app and site for youtube-style videos too, but again, it is another private corporation and controversial.

The scale of capital needed for video hosting is several orders of magnitude bigger than text and images, this is why youtube became a de facto monopoly on most parts of the world. There is several text-driven social media sites, including this one, but only one big youtube.

I will shamelessly recycle my comment up the thread:

The modern western conception of art (around which the current legal and economic systems were constructed) is really opposite to the idea that the current AI tools (OR the programmer that used them) should deserve any copyright.

Why ? The concept of art (the modern western one) is that an Art piece is composed of :

• 1 An Idea
• 2 A form that is given to that idea by a human artist.

The idea can be given by others, to be constructed by an artist. That is usually a Patron (from where Patreon invented its name) , in spanish Mecenas, that pays the work and directs what idea and even general form it will take (the social practice is called Mecenazgo in spanish, since english has no equivalent word, i will use that ). Example: The Sistine Chapel, which was conceptualized (and paid) by the Catholic Church, including themes and general style, and was given to italian artists like Michelangelo to give the final form, which they drew themselves, with the approval of the church authorities at the end.

The current Ai tools work exacly like the Mecenazgo:

• the human person (programmer or not) gives an input (textual, or other), the AI goes brrrrrr, and gives back an image. the person can take ir, or re-iterate the cycle with further inputs until satisfaction.
• This is really analogous with how art production ocurred in the Mecenazgo: The human input is the step 1 (an idea), the AI does the step 2 (give form to the idea). The further inputs by humans is analogous to the rough drafts the artist had to give the Mecenas first, the Mecenas described in more details and specifications what themes and forms he wanted, and that repeated until the Mecenas was satisfied with the final form the artist gave back.

The current copyright legal and economic system gives the intellectual property to the ARTIST, that made the step 2, and NOT to the Mecenas of the step 1. Because the Mecenas only had ideas, and the one who made what is considered artistic work, that deserves the legal privilege of IP, is the artist. If all someone did was tell the AI what to draw (i.e. gave an idea, general theme and general form), then the person is only acting as the Mecenas. The MACHINE is doing the artistic work, and since the machine is not a human that deserves the legal privilege, ir should be considered non copyrighted or public domain, just like the picture some monkey took of itself some years ago.

This was not always nor everywhere the social interpretation of WHO is the agent that actually made the art. Before the Renaissance, the western societies considered the Mecenas of step 1 the TRUE ARTIST, because he-she had the idea, and the person that gave form to the idea was considered a low level construction worker like stonemasons, that did not even have its name recorded. If you are wiilling to go back there, we would have to fundamentally change our interpretation of art , artists and rewrite the Sistine Chapel as created by the Catholic Church , and michelangelo is irrelevant.

Hard disagree here, the modern western conception of art (around which the current legal and economic systems were constructed) is really opposite to the idea that the current AI tools should deserve any copyright.
Why ? The concept of art (the modern western one) is that an Art piece is composed of :

1. An Idea
2. A form that is given to that idea by a human artist.

The idea can be given by others, to be constructed by an artist. That is usually a Patron (from where Patreon invented its name) , in spanish Mecenas, that pays the work and directs what idea and even general form it will take (the social practice is called Mecenazgo in spanish, since english has no equivalent word, i will use that ). Example: The Sistine Chapel, which was conceptualized (and paid) by the Catholic Church, including themes and general style, and was given to italian artists like Michelangelo to give the final form, which they drew themselves, with the approval of the church authorities at the end.

The current Ai tools work exacly like the Mecenazgo:

• the human person gives an input (textual, or other), the AI goes brrrrrr, and gives back an image. the person can take ir, or re-iterate the cycle with further inputs until satisfaction.
• This is really analogous with how art production ocurred in the Mecenazgo: The human input is the step 1 (an idea), the AI does the step 2 (give form to the idea). The further inputs by humans is analogous to the rough drafts the artist had to give the Mecenas first, the Mecenas described in more details and specifications what themes and forms he wanted, and that repeated until the Mecenas was satisfied with the final form the artist gave back.

The current copyright legal and economic system gives the intellectual property to the ARTIST, that made the step 2, and NOT to the Mecenas of the step 1. Because the Mecenas only had ideas, and the one who made what is considered artistic work, that deserves the legal privilege of IP, is the artist. If all someone did was tell the AI what to draw (i.e. gave an idea, general theme and general form), then the person is only acting as the Mecenas. The MACHINE is doing the artistic work, and since the machine is not a human that deserves the legal privilege, ir should be considered non copyrighted or public domain, just like the picture some monkey took of itself some years ago.

This was not always nor everywhere the social interpretation of WHO is the agent that actually made the art. Before the Renaissance, the western societies considered the Mecenas of step 1 the TRUE ARTIST, because he-she had the idea, and the person that gave form to the idea was considered a low level construction worker like stonemasons, that did not even have its name recorded. If you are wiilling to go back there, we would have to fundamentally change our interpretation of art , artists and rewrite the Sistine Chapel as created by the Catholic Church , and michelangelo is irrelevant.

The EU already demanded user replaceable batteries, outside of that just not using software lockdowns a la Apple would already allow 3rd party repair and manufacture of equivalent parts, going even further the Fairphone is modular and with open specs, this kind of modularity and open protocols would theoretically allow smartphones to be Ship of Theseus style immortals.

I appreciate all the technological quirks, but most people don't really need or even use then.
I do not know how different the current cameras are from an Iphone 11 Pro Max, but i just see people taking pretty pictures with the software optimizations (that could be updated via software) and uploading then to instagram, whatsapp etc, lots of times in compressed and digitally altered formats. Or writing text messages, using the bank app, playing shitty mobile games like candy crush, watching tiktok-youtube-streamings, paying stuff by nft, listening to spotify-other musics, etc. I really strugle to think how a common person with common habits will NEED to upgrade from a Iphone 14 Pro any time soon (for hardware reasons).

Honestly, if not for security patches, most people could probably use a top of the line 8 year old smartphone, like the Iphone 6, without almost missing any feature or functionality, maybe for 20 years or more. Would certainly be great for the environment if we could use a smartphone for 15 years or more, with all the computational power already available this should be doable on the technical level. Unfortunatelly, it will not be allowed to by mnanufacturers, and we do not have a universally compatible functional linux for phones, that also can pass the locked bootloaders.