effingjoe

I used reddit in a way where I would check out my front page, and then go to my favorite (smaller) subs to specifically look for things that wouldn't make it to the front page. Unfortunately, I've not followed through with that after leaving reddit, because I'm on kbin and it's pretty annoying to get to your followed magazines (as they're called), and I see indications about making some of them "favorite" but I don't think that functionality actually exists yet.

I'm sure it will get there eventually.

Intent is a big deal in this one. Your Python book writer intended for people to read it to learn Python.

I really don't see where intent falls into this, still-- but feel free to change the hypothetical to looking at other people's python code to learn how to use python. It still doesn't change the equation. Did I exploit the people who wrote the python code that I learned from? Does my source of learning matter when it comes to what I produce? Do you really believe that artists create new art in a total vacuum, without drawing inspiration from prior art?

Back-breaking jobs that hurt people's health should be improved with technology. A migrant worker might lost his job to a mechanical fruitpicker but he's likely bilingual and eligible for a translator job. Unless that job, which is better for health and longevity, and allows someone to stay in one place, is taken by an AI.

I am somewhat stunned by the obvious bias you seem to have against manual labor. You really think having an active job is less healthy than sitting in a chair, looking at a screen all day? (Please note: 90% of my job is sitting in a chair, staring at a screen all day.)

There was no "promise of automation". Technology was always going to take everyone's jobs-- the only change is the order it has taken it in. It was assumed that human creativity was some special thing that was so difficult to define in software that it would be towards the end when it came to getting replaced, but it turns out that we're a lot more like computers than we believe, and you can train software-- with relative ease-- to figure out how to achieve an end result without explicitly defining how.

Large companies want to reduce overhead, increase productivity, and maximize profit. I assure you there's no bias as to what kind of jobs get replaced when it comes to those goals. It just happens that creative jobs seem to be easily replaced.

Do you really, honestly, think that it's even possible to hold back a technological advance using legislation? You can already host your own LLMs and train them on whatever material you desire, to better tailor their output. That's today. Even if we assume, for sake of argument, that the law does decide that people have a "right" to control how their art is consumed. (again, very unlikely imo), that won't even slow down the people spinning up their own instances, and even if they follow the rules, how much worse do you really think the models would be using only public domain and open source training materials?

You're going to need to strictly define "exploited", I think. I don't know what you mean when you use that term.

If I read a book on Python and write a script to replace someone's job, did I exploit the person who wrote the book? What about the people that created and/or maintain python?

Why don't we want companies replacing creatives with AI? Should we roll back other technological advances that resulted in fewer humans being employed? No human routes phone calls anymore, but they used to. Should their jobs be protected, too? What about people that used to carve ice out of mountain lakes and deliver it to businesses? Should refrigeration technology be held back by the law to protect those jobs? If not, why artists? What makes them more deserving of being protected?

That's not necessarily true. Certainly plausible, but just as plausible as it working out like "cage free" eggs, where a perceived value pushes the market into a direction that it wouldn't go for purely financial reasons.

I don't follow why calling it a tool matters. If a python script renders someone's job redundant (hypothetically; this is unlikely in reality) does it matter if the script was written by a human or a LLM?

If you're leaning on morality, then the comparison to humans becomes relevant again.

Lawyers taking a high profile case is not any indication to go by.

I could be off base here, but are you financially impacted if AI starts making commercial art? Like, is that how you make income, too?

Right? I've been using public restrooms for a long time and I don't recall ever seeing anyone's naughty bits.

..and for me the most ridiculous part of this discussion is that bathrooms have never been a secure space. If some creep wanted to go into a bathroom to harass people, there is literally nothing stopping them. It's not like bathrooms have guarded entrances and now people have a sneaky way to get into a bathroom by pretending to be transgender or something insane like that.

It's literally a manufactured issue to get the GOP electorate terrified, as everything they do is designed to do.

You may very well be right on the money here, but I find it at least plausible that a market for "human-made" art becomes a thing if computer-made art becomes a thing.

In places with large crowds, gender neutral bathrooms (assuming you also mean single-use) don't really work. It causes massive lines.

Not to mention, there's no need. It's a bathroom. Why does anyone care who they pee or poop next to? It seems so silly and arbitrary to me. Just get in, do your thing, wash your hands, and get out. haha

That's a right to make copies and distribute them for educational purposes. This is specifically not involving distribution of any kind. Arguably copyright law doesn't even apply, but even under the broader term of "intellectual property", it doesn't hold up, even without trying to make a comparison between humans learning and AI training. (which is more of an analogy)

Edit: and to be fair, I'm not a lawyer either, but IP law (especially regarding how terrible it has become) is kind of a hobby of mine. But I can't claim to be any type of authority on it.

There simply isn't a right to control even training. That's just not a thing. It would need a change to the law.

VanillaOS is pretty neat. It has an immutable (kind of) OS, lets you choose which package formats you want to use (flatpak, snap, appimage, etc) and leverages containers (a la Distrobox) and their package manager Apx to give you seamless access to packages on other distros. It's Ubuntu-based right now but the next release is switching to debian.

To be fair, I don't have much time on it. My daily drivers are a chromebook and a steamdeck, but I did dust off an old laptop just to check it out for a little bit.