In the comments section of another, a TikTok user responded to a thread outlining the current administration’s anti-LGBTQ actions by saying, “None of that has anything to do with us being gay.”

Compliance will not save you, you craven fucking cowards. They have never been quiet about how much they hate gay people, and the fact that they’re focused so heavily on attacking trans people right now is only because they want to pick off the weakest of the herd first.

Bigotry is the enemy of all people. None of us is free until all of us are free.

I’m genuinely struggling to believe that you’re being anything other than intentionally disingenuous here, because it’s hard to imagine how anyone operating in good faith could manage to miss a point so completely and utterly.

But on the off chance that you’re serious; the logic is that purpose has far more moral weight to it than means. Punching out a Nazi to save the black man he was trying to beat to death in the gutter is a morally good thing to do. Punching out a trans person because you’re a hateful bigot is a morally bad thing to do. Do I need to elaborate on that? I feel like I shouldn’t have to, but then it feels like I shouldn’t have to be explaining any of this.

If you were in a sealed room with a thousand starving children, a padlocked shipping container full of food labelled “Property of Jeff Bezos”, and a set of bolt-cutters, what would you do? Because if the answer is anything other than “Break the lock open”, your entire moral system is completely and utterly fucked, and I do not know how to explain it to you any more plainly than that. If you actually believe that property rights are more important than human lives, then I honestly think you might need serious and extensive therapy to undo whatever damage has been done to you.

Yeah, I’m all for pro-Palestine activism; fully support this cause, and I have no moral objections to destroying some property to do it. Human lives are more important than inanimate objects. But I really wish they could have come up with a version of this plan that didn’t involve fucking over Ukraine.

Unfortunately I suspect a lot of these people may be of the stripe of Leftist that treats anything relating to war - including arming the victims of unprovoked territorial aggression - as morally wrong, meaning they likely saw this as killing two birds with one stone.

Yes. People are more important than property. If your reaction to vandalism in service of protesting a genocide is to be upset about the vandalism, you need to sit back and really think about whether your moral compass needs some recalibration.

What we’ve seen very clearly with fair use is that you end up being forced to defend it, as opposed to it being presumed. That means it’s very easy for a rightsholder with money to go after every use, fair or not, and force the user to spend time and money defending themselves (and also probably face a preliminary injunction that takes the image down until the case is over, which will often be after its newsworthy).

It’s not the standard because it will likely have a LOT of unintended consequences.

How do you share evidence of police brutality if they can use copyright to take down the video? How do newspapers print pictures of people if they have to get the rightsholders permission first? How do we share photos of Elon Musk doing a Nazi salute if he can just sue every site that posts it for unauthorized use of his likeness?

Unless this has some extremely stringent and well written limitations, it has the potential to be a very bad idea.

Actually one of the characters in 1984 works in the department that produces computer generated romance novels. Orwell pretty accurately predicted the idea of AI slop as a propaganda tool.

There are, as I understand it, ways that you can train on AI generated material without inviting model collapse, but that’s more to do with distilling the output of a model. What Musk is describing is absolutely wholesale confabulation being fed back into the next generation of their model, which would be very bad. It’s also a total pipe dream. Getting an AI to rewrite something like the total training data set to your exact requirements, and verifying that it had done so satisfactorily would be an absolutely monumental undertaking. The compute time alone would be staggering and the human labour (to check the output) many times higher than that.

But the whiny little piss baby is mad that his own AI keeps fact checking him, and his engineers have already explained that coding it to lie doesn’t really work because the training data tends to outweigh the initial prompt, so this is the best theory he can come up with for how he can “fix” his AI expressing reality’s well known liberal bias.

deleted by creator

There is no such thing as an “unreviewable” decision. Even if the decision is backed by the law, it can still be reviewed, in order to confirm that it is indeed backed by the law.

Trump is not just arguing that he has the right to do this; he’s arguing that there should be no legal review process at all, which is an argument any kinds of checks and balances whatsoever. He’s demanding total autocracy.

We’ve already avoided 4C based on current trends.

This is because the world is rapidly pivoting to renewables, simply because they’re so much cheaper and better than the alternatives. It will be almost impossible to reverse that trend even with the damage the Trump admin will do.

Don’t get me wrong, we still have a LOT of work to do, but the situation is not hopeless. The number one spreaders of climate doomerism right now are oil and gas companies. They want you to despair, so that you’ll give up on trying to change things. In reality a lot of climate trends are already swinging in positive directions simply because of the economics. That on its own is not enough, and we’ll never solve a market driven problem with market solutions, but it’s a start.