Appreciate the thoughtful and in-depth response. My worry is more that a science article's editorialized interpretation of the paper may be wrong or misleading, than that the public isn't very able to scrutinize the quality of science in the paper itself. Waiting for a possible email response from a researcher is pretty much always going to be a little too high effort for someone wanting to spend a few minutes comparing claims in the article and claims in the paper to potentially call bullshit on discrepancies between them in an online comment.
chicken
Science articles that reference paywalled journals you can't actually read. Most of them are probably making stuff up because they know no one will be able to call them out on it.
Nothing, I'm only making a better world if I can make my own life better at the same time. I do live an extreme frugal existence and avoid working for any unethical organization, but it's not a sacrifice.
What we can "bear" is the wrong question for a couple reasons:
-
Consumer luxuries don't actually make for a better life.
-
Altruistic scheming isn't anyone's actual motivation for doing things.
-
"sacrifice" is irrational bargaining; reality doesn't care whether you've made yourself enough of a martyr, and people who want to be martyrs don't care if what they're sacrificing actually makes much of a difference.
An effective solution will involve changes we can be happy about and a lifestyle that is actually better than what we have now. Commutes and lives spent stressing over money are a shit trade for what people get from it anyway, it won't be hard to do better with less.
there’s no guarantee that you’ll catch all of it or that you won’t have false positives
You wouldn't need to catch all of it, the more popular a post gets the more likely at least one person notices it's an AI laundered repost. As for false positives, the examples in the article are really obviously AI adjusted copies of the original images, everything is the same except the small details, there's no mistaking that.
in a culture that seems obsessed with ‘free speech absolutism’, I imagine the Facebook execs would need to have a solid rationale to ban ‘AI generated content’, especially given how hard it would be to enforce.
Personally I think people seem to hate free speech now compared to how it used to be online, and are unfortunately much more accepting of censorship. I don't think AI generated content should be banned as a whole, just ban this sort of AI powered hoax, who would complain about that?
Especially egregious because the images are basically the same as the original photos, they just used controlnet to alter the details. It shouldn't be that difficult to stop this kind of thing, assuming Facebook even wanted to; looks like it is entirely possible to find the original popular post the AI posts are trying to copy to prove this is going on, and people are already doing the volunteer work of tracking it all, there would just need to be a way to report this stuff and confirm it. I doubt Facebook wants to do this though since engagement is engagement.
I mean it's not like they consent to being shot either
This is what I hate the most about the practice of using a very "scorched earth" style of rhetoric focused on shaming and berating and making things uncomfortable for opponents. There's probably a lot of people with objections but they just don't feel like dealing with that stuff so they don't say anything.
I’ve been trying to shift my perspective in treating replies as the start of a conversation, where a shorter post with less information or caveats makes more sense to start from so you can narrow down the direction of the comment thread later.
This is how you do it, put the most important details and fill in the rest if it comes up. The more words in a row the less anyone is going to read them.
If you have many millions of dollars lying around it might make sense, for the same reason it might make sense to a normal person to spend a few dollars on an item they could instead spend 50 cents for a cheaper version of if they wait a few months for slow shipping from China. What a pricetag means to you changes depending on how much you have to spend.
I see a lot of twitch streamers pretty blatantly only trying to avoid copyrighted content to the extent they know it will get picked up by the algorithms. Footage of a physical book isn't going to get any kind of automatic flagging, and would arguably be fair use if you are just referencing segments of it to learn about something.
It would be a lot more conclusive if you could find somewhere the isGecko function is being used in association with a delay though, there are other things they could use it for.
It doesn't have to be that way, and I'm not convinced it's strictly better that way.
Idk about that, even people without electricity or running water can get a cheap cell phone and solar charger now.
Definitely. No need to be giving up things like regular bathing and functional cooking utensils that make a big difference for little expense.