FriendOfDeSoto

I mean technically this exists to an extent in English. “You can’t touch this!” - “I can too.” (Every word is stressed). Or endless sandbox arguments along the lines of “Not!” - “Too!” - “Not!” - “Too!” - “Not!” - you get the idea. It’s more pronounced as a concept in Germanic languages that haven’t strayed as far away as English has but they still have it.

Naturally.

In this scenario and considering old people are at a higher statistical risk of passing away: it is possible. However, the same message will play if you end your subscription because you moved to a different place and couldn’t transfer the number to your new place. Disused phone numbers don’t get redistributed right away, the phone companies use their own system of how long it has to remain fallow.

Backpfeiffengesicht, a face you want to slap or is for various reasons in need of a slap

The problem is, I think, abundance of quality - or the lack thereof. For all the research based prizes, there is enough stuff floating around the ether that you can pick something interesting and worth the prize to be awarded. Old Phil Physicist, not by accident a man, will get the prize for fundamental research into clockwise spinning protons and that helps us today with welding or something. Nobody but the experts understands this and we’re okay with that.

And then Literature and Peace. They seem more subjective. Us non-labcoats have opinions on these ones. And thus the controversy likelihood is much higher.

Since they get awarded every year, it’s become a fixture in media coverage. Like the New Year’s ball drop, Carnival in Rio, the Pope urbi’ing et orbi’ing, Black Friday, etc. It’s predictable news coverage.

I don’t think they should stop it. Even the institutionalized reminder once a year that it’s worth it working towards peace is not a bad thing. I think the prize has the most gravitas when it’s awarded for long time services to peace on the books. Like giving it to the chemical weapons disposers, the red crescent/cross or even the EU, which has probably prevented more deaths from wars within than it has tolerated refugees drowning in the Med. They have done more good stuff for peace. It’s tricky when they give it to people for more current achievements. Kissinger wasn’t the peacemaker it looked like he was. Aung San Su Kyi was a great figurehead while under house arrest 1.0 - and arguably not great enough for the Rohingya when she was let out. Obama got it because they thought he wasn’t Bush, and then he sent the drones. We want our laureates to be saints and it hurts when we find out they are just flawed humans.

I’m only allowed to switch our old desktop to Linux now that Win10 support is running out. My partner objected until now and I chose to die on other hills. But now, when I have a weekend to spare, I can finally switch over to probably Ubuntu.

Neither of us are legal scholars, are we. If I pretended to be one, I would say the government acting as a user on somebody else’s platform or the government running its own platform are different enough circumstances not to derive comparisons from.

No, I would not want to join such an instance but I wouldn’t mind its existence. Nobody could really federate with it. So you create a niche server in an already niche environment.

I am not convinced the conclusion “if the government runs it, the first amendment has to apply” is apt. Even if the server was run from under the house majority leader’s desk - which I don’t think it would, this smells more like an outsourced undertaking - moderation on the platform is not “making a law.” And proprietors of platforms are legally compelled to moderate in certain cases, e.g. when illegal stuff like child sexual abuse is involved.

There are at least two discussions going on here simultaneously. Is the process of a beefed up spell checker sucking up all the data the same as an artist looking at what had come before, before either of them churn out new art? I’m inclined to agree with you; the process does seem similar enough. The difference remains that one is a statistical model and the other is a human being. So even if the process appears similar enough, they are two different types of player and I can also agree that we should not treat them the same. One is able to throw constant massive amounts of spaghetti at the wall as long as there are chips and power and the other is limited by their health and more limited processing power. So where the compromise lands in this discussion simply isn’t clear yet. And while you and I can discuss this, I can say for myself at least I’m not smart enough to see where this goes eventually.

The other discussion is how all of it collides with existing copyright/trademark law, which is essentially different in every country. Constitutional rights, like freedoms of expression and the arts, are given to real people, not computers. But at least one supreme court in this planet has made corporate money a form of free speech. So eff knows where LLMs end up.

This is new territory we’re in. And I fear that’s why it will take another decade until we get a legal landmark decision or a political compromise that will be similar enough all around the world.

The law mostly disagrees with the memes = theft. A lot of it is covered through freedom of speech and fair use. If you have taken a bit of content, changed it a bit, recontextualized, and reposted it, you are most likely in the clear. Especially if the original content was publicly posted. This gets less clear if you are using the likeness of a private person but this will also depend on context. Where in the world you are, if this content was captured in a public space or from something published - the list goes on, like some stuff can be trademarked as well, and I’m no lawyer. A lot of these things run under the legal doctrine of “no plaintiff, no judge.” I feel artists in general have accepted that anything they post online is just potentially gone. And if no one steals their content to make money off it, they’re not going to hire a lawyer, whom they cannot afford.

And I’m not saying any of this is great but that’s an established status quo.

The reason why so-called AI generated art gets decried is twofold. It’s new and we don’t like new things. And in order for it to be created, the models have to suck in all the training data they can. And they don’t tend to pay for it. So that’s where some people see theft happening. But that’s not settled law yet because it’s fairly new, there are plaintiffs but not enough judges have passed judgement yet. Do they have to pay for stuff that’s publicly available? Where is the line, if any? Is imitation of a style okay if there is more to the work than just copying something from Studio Ghibli or Disney? These questions are going to keep a lot of legal professionals in bacon for a long time still.

This shit is hard. It’s more gray than black and white.

When they use idioms and expressions incorrectly.

How dare you!

I wouldn’t buy these type of glasses either. I have neither the money nor the need so I’m not in the target group anyways. And if I had money, I would under no circumstances give it to a company like Meta.

I don’t think the huge privacy concerns are going to hold. There is all sorts of equipment people can buy that is less obvious to film you surreptitiously. Always scan your air b’n’b, people. We are virtually all okay with strangers filming shit in our vicinity with their smartphones as long as we feel it isn’t us they’re filming. I think this will over time translate to an unbotheredness w/r/t smart glasses. And after a while even the LED light altering others to a rolling camera will disappear. These devices become main stream by their usefulness. The HUD for directions or names of acquaintances is one useful aspect. The immediate way to record your toddler’s first steps or the funny face they pulled. An interaction with the law. Over time, this will outweigh the creepiness that we have perceived since the Google glasshole days.

“Nambia”

I fear you either misunderstand my comment or what martyrdom means. I’m no fan of the man who got shot. And for me he’ll never be a martyr. But those who did like him can now hail him as such, make him a hero - for all the other people who liked him. Martyrdom is in the eye of the beholder.

When and where did you go to school? That capital A that looks more like the lowercase one I’ve only ever seen from people from North America.

Whoever wrote this was probably still in school and I would guess in a North American one because of the cursive they wrote in. I think they also copied the text, badly, and that explains the mistakes.

I fear it will the shooter’s legacy that we will all remember the name. He may have otherwise continued his life as a weird, argumentative footnote in history. Now he will be a vessel of martyrdom that will fill itself with content poured in by those who instrumentalize his unfortunate death.

No, no, no, and no. If you see nothing but hateful and negative content, then you have been badly served by algorithms where they roam or you’ve been bad at building your feed on the fediverse.

Define civility.