Schadrach

hey want to drag the nation back about a century. Women without a vote, black people again as slaves,

Neither of those was the case a century ago. Literally closer to two centuries than one for black folks since slavery (160 years since the 13th Amendment to be more exact) and women’s suffrage is also over a century old if you count it starting at the 19th Amendment as opposed to any period where it was up to the states.

If AI didn’t exist, it would’ve probably been Astrology or Conspiracy Theories or QAnon or whatever that ended up triggering this within people who were already prone to psychosis.

Or hearing the Beatles White Album and believing it tells you that a race war is coming and you should work to spark it off, then hide in the desert for a time only to return at the right moment to save the day and take over LA. That one caused several murders.

But the problem with ChatGPT in particular is that is validates the psychosis… that is very bad.

If you’re sufficiently detached from reality, nearly anything validates the psychosis.

Yeah, wasn’t trolling. They literally start a court case against the property to determine if that property was used in or purchased through the proceeds of a crime, and the standard is a preponderance of the evidence. Hiring a lawyer to defend your property against the allegation it was bought with drug money or w/e often costs more than replacing it would. Which is the point.

The term used for it in law enforcement is “civil asset forfeiture”. For her to get it back, her property is going to have to get a lawyer to defend that it is probably not used in a crime or purchased with funds obtained through criminal activity. Doing that is not cheap.

They got a majority of votes. Unless you live in a deep blue area it’s likely to get you more customers than it costs, at least for now. Most customers won’t care either way, they’re at your business to buy your goods/services, not as a political statement.

Those signs will go down fast except for the very political and deep red areas once we’re in a post-Trump world.

To be clear, when you say “seeded from” you mean an image that was analyzed as part of building the image classifying statistical model that is then essentially running reverse to produce images, yes?

And you are arguing that every image analyzed to calculate the weights on that model is in a meaningful way contained in every image it generated?

I’m trying to nail down exactly what you mean when you say “seeded by.”

OK, so this is just the general anti-AI image generation argument where you believe any image generated is in some meaningful way a copy of every image analyzed to produce the statistical model that eventually generated it?

I’m surprised you’re going the CSAM route with this and not just arguing that any AI generated sexually explicit image of a woman is nonconsensual porn of literally every woman who has ever posted a photo on social media.

was seeded with the face of a 15yr old and that they really are 15 for all intents and purposes.

That’s…not how AI image generation works? AI image generation isn’t just building a collage from random images in a database - the model doesn’t have a database of images within it at all - it just has a bunch of statistical weightings and net configuration that are essentially a statistical model for classifying images, being told to produce whatever inputs maximize an output resembling the prompt, starting from a seed. It’s not “seeded with an image of a 15 year old”, it’s seeded with white noise and basically asked to show how that white noise looks like (in this case) “woman porn miniskirt”, then repeat a few times until the resulting image is stable.

Unless you’re arguing that somewhere in the millions of images tagged “woman” being analyzed to build that statistical model is probably at least one person under 18, and that any image of “woman” generated by such a model is necessarily underage because the weightings were impacted however slightly by that image or images, in which case you could also argue that all drawn images of humans are underage because whoever drew it has probably seen a child at some point and therefore everything they draw is tainted by having been exposed to children ever.

97% of the internet has no idea what Matrix channels even are.

I’ve been able to explain it to people pretty easily as “like Discord, but without Discord administration getting to control what’s allowed, only whoever happens to run that particular server.”

A more apt comparison would be people who go out of their way to hurt animals.

Is it? That person is going out of their way to do actual violence. It feels like arguing someone watching a slasher movie is more likely to make them go commit murder is a much closer analogy to someone watching a cartoon of a child engaged in sexual activity or w/e being more likely to make them molest a real kid.

We could make it a video game about molesting kids and Postal or Hatred as our points of comparison if it would help. I’m sure someone somewhere has made such a game, and I’m absolutely sure you’d consider COD for “fun and escapism” and someone playing that sort of game is doing so “in bad faith” despite both playing a simulation of something that is definitely illegal and the core of the argument being that one causes the person to want to the illegal thing more and the other does not.

…and most of the people who agree with that notion would also consider reading Lemmy to be “trawling dark waters” because it’s not a major site run by a massive corporation actively working to maintain advertiser friendliness to maximize profits. Hell, Matrix is practically Lemmy-adjacent in terms of the tech.

eventually they want to move on to the real thing, as porn is not satisfying them anymore.

Isn’t this basically the same argument as arguing violent media creates killers?

They have to deal with old men masturbating to them getting raped online.

The moment it was posted to wherever they were going to have to deal with that forever. It’s not like they can ever know for certain that every copy of it ever made has been deleted.

it says “this hidden site”, meaning it was a site on the dark web.

Not just on the dark web (which technically is anything not indexed by search engines) but hidden sites are specifically a TOR thing (though Freenet/Hyphanet has something similar but it’s called something else). Usually a TOR hidden site has a URL that ends in .onion and the TOR protocol has a structure for routing .onion addresses.

Even then, a common bit you’ll hear from people actually defending pedophilia is that the damage caused is a result of how society reacts to it or the way it’s done because of the taboo against it rather than something inherent to the act itself, which would be even harder to do research on than researching pedophilia outside a criminal context already is to begin with. For starters, you’d need to find some culture that openly engaged in adult sex with children in some social context and was willing to be examined to see if the same (or different or any) damages show themselves.

And that’s before you get into the question of defining where exactly you draw the age line before it “counts” as child sexual abuse, which doesn’t have a single, coherent answer. The US alone has at least three different answers to how old someone has to be before having sex with them is not illegal based on their age alone (16-18, with 16 being most common), with many having exceptions that go lower (one if the partners are close “enough” in age are pretty common). For example in my state, the age of consent is 16 with an exception if the parties are less than 4 years difference in age. For California in comparison if two 17 year olds have sex they’ve both committed a misdemeanor unless they are married.

It also likely gives you the best $ spent/children protected rate, because you know the producers have children they are abusing which may or may not be the case for a viewer.

Specifically to have that conversation - there is no connection whatsoever between “earned their money” and “has views I agree with” or even “has non-harmful views.” At least Notch doesn’t do worse than occasionally tweet what he thinks.

You grossly underestimate just how shitty people can be. Which is wild given what’s going on in gestures wildly.

I mean there is a difference between “earned their money rather than being born into it” and “has all the correct politics”.

I have witnessed not one single rich person earn fucking shit!

I mean there are a handful that created some kind of creative work that became wildly popular and their wealth is ultimately derived primarily from that creation that you could argue earned it. Like Notch or JK Rowling.