Ha. I knew there was something fishy about that. Anyway, I’m done feeding this troll. I hope he got his worth out of shilling for Altman.

Did I see a sportsball event? I can talk about it to whom I want when I want.

Sure.

Did I buy a physical book? I can take as many photos of it as I want.

Nope. You can’t, for example, take a picture of all the pages and then redistribute those.

Now answer my question if you plan to go after another Daycare, Disney. No more evasions

Only if you tell me whether or not you stopped beating your wife.

What part is confusing you exactly?

I initially thought you were ignorant of the core principle of intellectual property, but now I see you’re just wilfully delusional.

Let me get this straight - if a vengeful ex or someone else gets a hand on naked pictures of you, they can do whatever they want to them? You wouldn’t want any limits on their ability to alter them and spread them?

Yes. Your content and tech. And you even get a say in how others get to use it. Thanks to laws like these. Not to someone else’s.

So what will happen to art if we only disallow AI models from learning from copyrighted performances, whilst still allowing them to do so from public domain and licensed works (and obviously not changing anything for humans who seek inspiration)?

Quite the contrary, actually. Thanks to this law you won’t have to watermark something you own, in order to prevent companies to use it for profit.

Unless of course you have the misconception that downloading something that someone else made is the same as owning it. In which case, I understand this might be difficult for you to grasp.

Not OP, but I also don’t think it’s the same thing. But even if it were, the consequences are nowhere near the same.

A person might be able to learn to replicate an artist’s style, given enough practice and patience, but it would take them a long time, and the most “damage” they could do with that, is create new content at roughly the same rate as the original creator.

It would take an AI infinitely less time to acquire that same skill, and infinitely less time to then create that content. So given those factors, I think there’s an enormous difference between 1 person learning to copy your skill, or a company that does it as a business model.

Btw, if you didn’t know it yet - search engines don’t need to create a large language model in order to find web content. They’ve been working fine (one night even say Better) without doing that.

Exposed credentials means that somebody got sloppy the password. So yeah, “stolen creds”. Give the fact that a) NYT seems knows which credentials were exposed, and b) We haven’t seen hundreds of other high(er) profile companies have their private repos breached, it is far more likely that NYT fucked up, and not Microsoft (which is what you implied, with nothing to back it up - other than a very narrow-minded definition of the word hack).

Does that refer to Izzy, or the people who complained because they expressed their opinion?

Nope, but it will stop the less determined ones.

With no email verification, you can pretty much create dozens of fake accounts per second - as fast as the API can handle.

the ability to scream so loud that other voices can’t reach the audience.

Could you elaborate on that? It’s hard to see which voices are drowned out, on account of them, well, bring drowned out ;)

I personally think it’s more the case that people are just locked into their own little bubbles, thanks to algorithms feeding them a mixture of what they want to hear (to feel validated) and of what upsets them (to get that outrage interaction).

If anything, I think that governments and traditional media are having a lot less influence, in favour of outrage-based, exaggerated, skewed or just down misrepresented takes of the facts - perpetuated by upset participants in social media.

So you’re not opposed to freedom of speech, but freedom of press?

But what’s the alternative? People are allowed to post their opinions, but once they’re part of a company (like a news agency), their publications have to be vetted for by… What, exactly?

According to which definition?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like it either. But the only difference between someone knowingly propagating misinformation, and someone doing it because they honestly believe it to be true… is in their head. You can’t control for that (not should you want to, imho).

For that matter, repeat the misinformation enough, and the former group disappears until only the second group is left.

I’m a bit torn about this. On one hand I fully agree with you, let them stew in their filth. But on the other hand: I still have to live in a society where people who have been indoctrinated by their filter bubble get to vote.

Then on the first hand again: messing with their freedom of speech because I disagree with it is fucked up. It’s complicated.

Since the day twitter introduced their algorithmic timeline, they kept the option around to watch your feed chronologically. So the big “what if” of this articles headline is just “what if I just use twitter the way I could since it’s inception”.

Instead, rather than an algorithmic filter bubble, the author want a human-imposed filter bubble. So much better.

Does that mean that the only way of stopping my data from reaching Threads would be for them to defederate from my instance?

Ah, bummer. I thought I’d be in the clear because we’re having this conversation on Lemmy.ml. Thanks for straightening me out.

I might end up using a personal instance as well. But in that case I’ll probably end up with an instance whitelist, rather than defederating from disliked ones.

I wouldn’t put it past them to put tracking images into posts though. Either way… I wouldn’t be happy on a server that is connected to threads.

Speaking of which… I see lemmy world see still hasn’t defederated from Threads. I guess it’s time for me to kill my account here.

Ip address is only sent to a users home server though.