The trivialization doesn’t negate the point though, and LLMs aren’t intelligence.

The AI consumed all of that content and I would bet that not a single of the people who created the content were compensated, but the AI strictly on those people to produce anything coherent.

I would argue that yes, generative artificial stupidity doesn’t meet the minimum bar of original thought necessary to create a standard copyrightable work unless every input has consent to be used, and laundering content through multiple generations of an LLM or through multiple distinct LLMs should not impact the need for consent.

Without full consent, it’s just a massive loophole for those with money to exploit the hard work of the masses who generated all of the actual content.

tl;dr: I don’t think we can shift to an optimal societal structure overnight, but there are already concrete steps to take along that path that we could and should have already taken yesterday. None of my judgements are based on “is it too hard?” just “will it work, and if it won’t work yet what can we do to get to a situation where it will be possible?” Under no circumstances do I think sitting around doing nothing and waiting is the correct decision.

I was sort of masking my thoughts so they may have come out unclear, so I will be more clear:

I think that the future of humanity requires us to become space-faring. Our current ownership model is fundamentally incompatible with us being space-faring and successful at it. We can’t transition all of society to a space-compatible structure overnight, it would end in failure since it would cause immediate mass revolt.

I don’t think we should wait to make changes to society though. I just think we need a transition and I’m willing to work with anyone who has good-faith proposals on steps we can take now to eventually get there.

From my point of view there’s never going to be a time where we can shift overnight because we can’t handle that extreme of a shift.

One concession of a space-compatible society unfortunately is the “complete” freedom we have today and the concept of ownership. In a space-compatible society every person must play their part. Only after essentials are covered would people have freedom and ownership, but even still both would be restricted and it would be semi-meritocratic. Security would also become paramount.

Things like single-payer health care and education are relatively basic and realistically speaking should be inoffensive short-term steps that we take. The best time for those steps was yesterday, the second best time is now. Things like UBI would be the step after that, and role-optimization would come after even UBI because that’s when we begin to lose some freedom. I think role-optimization is something we can’t even implement yet but would cause riots and it would take a generation or two with the previously mentioned things before it could be applied society-wide (it’s already something that will be required for early space colonization).

I can’t say as I’m surprised that anyone would propose such corrupt legislation, but I am still disappointed.

I think the point is that the kids don’t care and the only people complaining are the adults who don’t feel completely comfortable.

No it’s clearly the Krispy Kreme Crusade, they don’t want America to run on Dunkin!

This is a chicken and egg problem.

They claim there is voter fraud, so they vote twice to counteract the voter fraud, which leads to claims of voter fraud.

I mean I guess it’s counteracting the vote fraud if they get caught and stripped of eligibility…

I’m very left leaning but I don’t think we as a society are necessarily ready for the optimal societal structure, and I know I don’t know what the best path to getting us there is.

I’m not against opposition parties, I think that we ideally need a bunch of distinct viewpoints at the table, but all of those distinct viewpoints should meet some minimum bar of human decency and respect.

Right now I think some of the stuff the GOP fights for is demonstrably below that bar, and I am not referring to the quiet and unheard constituents, I’m referring to the people with the loudspeaker.

Some examples of viewpoints that don’t get a seat at the table are pro-slavery, pro-genocide, pro-sexual abuse, pro-fake medicine, pro-corporate ownership, etc. An opposition party is not a party that supports these things, an opposition party would be one that says “hey rather than letting X company corner the market and have a de facto monopoly, we break them up so they have less control”, or “hey instead of invading another country militarily, we offer humanitarian aid instead”, or “hey if we’re going to rework the economy to have more freedom and respect for the consumer, instead of socializing production of resources we adopt more competition-oriented free-market regulations”. The thing is, this isn’t what any opposition party is doing.

(I’ll also admit that I was a fool for thinking that big tech hate by the right was ever going to lead stronger regulation of the big tech corporate empires, it’s just hollow and blind hatred, all bark and literally no useful bite.)

Exactly, why would you vote for a party that is telling you how to raise your kids and what you can do in your own bedroom, i.e. why vote for the GOP, who do exactly that?

If the GOP doesn’t outright restrict you, they let their corporate sponsors do it directly.

The ban is on campus networks, but the reactions I’m reading are acting like this is a ban on the campus itself.

It’s not censorship (or fascism), just like if they blocked PornHub it wouldn’t be censorship (or fascism).

And no, blocking PornHub on a university campus where the vast, vast majority of connected users are 18+ isn’t justifiable unless it was under the grounds of security.

Some sites do this and it’s annoying. A better check is to compare the part before the + if it’s Gmail.

To give them the benefit of the doubt, having to sign an NDA doesn’t mean they actually get into bed with Meta.

If you catch me completely off-guard, or for example 10 minutes ago when I started reading the thread, I definitely would give a hot-headed “hell no, fuck you Fuckerberg” response to any approach from Meta, but now that I’ve had the time to calmly think and see other people’s responses I have a better idea (which follows the benefit of the doubt train of though I mentioned).

Sure, the NDA ties your hands, but only until Meta makes the stuff they are scheming public. If federation is part of it, once they federate it would become public knowledge anyway. I’ll admit it’s not a large group of people who would be signing the NDA and sitting down with Meta, but that group of people now has advanced warning of anything Meta is planning and they can begin to counter plan, which is better than being caught totally off guard when Fuckerberg exposes himself.

If they do lie in bed (and federate) with Meta rather than use it as an opportunity to gain Intel on Meta’s horrid schemes, then sure, they will have chosen that side. If they just take Meta’s money and ultimately it helps the fediverse, or just use it to gain Intel, then no harm, no foul?

Off topic joke: As a JS dev, I wish it were extinguished 😂

I’m definitely in support of “mega-threading” anything related to the Reddit blackout unless it’s big breaking news (but mega-thread those events too).

I’ve also started to look for communities for some of my interests, but I suspect it’s going to take a while before a lot of them spread to here. There are also a bunch that I can’t really start since I am primarily a consumer and not a producer (specialized topics like astrophysics that I am not a subject matter expert for).