ChemicalRascal

Whisked off into space by what, exactly?

A large swarm of satellites, forming an adjustable solar shade, sitting around L1 for Earth-Sun is likely the best approach we would have. The swarm wouldn’t be in a geosynchronous orbit, though, but instead a heliosynchronous one.

Realistically? Something a lot like what we currently have, but with everyone having access to prompt healthcare, living in comfort. A focus on community and cooperation being more dominant in the culture, rather than competition and comparison.

Exactly this. On Reddit, you would end up with stuff like r/TrueStarWars and such as a result of bad mods moderating badly — but those communities would have a harder time taking off due to the name being less searchable, and individuals needing to be “in the know” about why one sub has “true” out the front.

With everyone being able to take the same community name, just across different instances, there’s a potential for a better, more competitive process to take place instead. It won’t be perfect — @starwars is going to be in a much more immediately advantaged position than, say, @starwars — but in theory the playing field is closer to being level.

I suggest reading my entire comment.

I did, buddy. You’re just wrong. You can copyright data. A work can be “just data”. Again, we’re not talking about a set of measurements of the natural world.

It’s only a work if your brain is a work. (…) The weights that make up a neural network represent encodings into neurons, and as such should be treated the same way as neural encodings in a brain.

Okay, I see how you have the hot take that a generative model is brain-like to you, but that’s a hot take – it’s not a legally accepted fact that a trained model is not a work.

You understand that, right? You do get that this hasn’t been debated in court, and what you think is correct is not necessarily how the legal system will rule on the matter, yeah?

Because the argument that a trained generative model is a work is also pretty coherent. It’s a thing that you can distribute, even monetise. It isn’t a person, it isn’t an intelligence, it’s essentially part of a program, and it’s the output of labour performed by someone.

The fact that something models neurons does not mean it can’t be a work. That’s not… coherent. You’ve jumped from A to Z and your argument to get there is “human brain has neurons”. Like, okay? Does that somehow mean anything that is vaguely neuron-like is not a work? So if I make a mechanical neuron, I can’t copyright it? I can’t patent it?

No, that’s absurd.

Also, neural network weights are just a bunch of numbers, and I’m pretty sure data can’t be copyrighted.

Just being “a bunch of numbers” doesn’t stop it from being a work, it doesn’t stop it from being a derivative work, and you absolutely can copyright data – all digitally encoded works are “just data”.

A trained AI is not a measurement of the natural world. It is a thing that has been created from the processing of other things – in the common sense of it the word, it is derivative of those works. What remains, IMO, is the question of if it would be a work, or something else, and if that something else would be distinct enough from being a work to matter.

No, I know how these neural nets are trained and how they’re structured. They really don’t contain any identifiable copies of the material used to train it.

Go back and read my comment in full, please. I addressed that directly.

No? No. Not all work is analogous to training a generative model. That’s a really bizarre thing to say, and I’m shocked to hear it from you.

The problem with that approach is that the resulting AI doesn’t contain any identifiable “copies” of the material that was used to train it. No copying, no copyright. The AI model is not a legally recognizable derivative work.

That’s a HUGE assumption you’ve made, and certainly not something that has been tested in court, let alone found to be true.

In the context of existing legal precedent, there’s an argument to be made that the resulting model is itself a derivative work of the copyright-protected works, even if it does not literally contain an identifiable copy, as it is a derivative of the work in the common meaning of the term.

If the future output of the model that happens to sound very similar to the original voice actor counts as a copyright violation, then human sound-alikes and impersonators would also be in violation and things become a huge mess.

A key distinction here is that a human brain is not a work, and in that sense, a human brain learning things is not a derivative work.

The glaring oversight in your opinion is that all NSFW posts are clearly marked as NSFW, and desktop reddit along with all the mobile apps have settings requiring you to opt-in to view NSFW posts with further settings to actually display the image previews or hide them (default).

But not all NSFW content is porn. And turning on NSFW visibility is not the same thing as being subscribed to a porn sub.

Your whole argument is disingenuous and borders on concern trolling or pearl clutching. Reddit is full of porn and other NSFW images, so don’t act like they’re suddenly showing hard-core porn to a bunch of kids or something.

Okay, let’s change the scenario a bit then. Let’s say I magically know you have NSFW content turned on, on your Reddit account. We’ve never conversed.

I then, unprompted, start sending you links to hardcore pornographic images, in your DMs. Once every half hour or so.

Is that something you think would be totally fine? Do you seriously think I wouldn’t be violating a lack of consent on your part? You’ve turned on visibility of NSFW posts, after all, you must be fine with seeing it!

Opting in to NSFW content is not consenting to randomly have pornography thrown at you by a subreddit that wasn’t a porn sub when you subscribed.

What the fuck, dude.

Majority of them did consent to the possibility of encountering such content. Thats the whole point of that check mark.

There’s an enormous difference between “I’m okay with content considered NSFW, like descriptions of war and so on, being shown to me” and getting porn in your main page. That check box is not an “I consent to being shown porn” button.

Was it only hardcore porn? All I saw was 50% memes about nudity allowed and 50% basic nudity like boobs and pussy reveal by gonewild / only fans posters. Divnt even see softcore solo content let alone hardcore porn.

… Did you just imply that a “pussy reveal” and “basic nudity” isn’t “softcore solo [pornography]”?

Except a small number that probably opted in for NSFW for getting spoilers or other non nude purposes, most already have nude content present in their feeds and use alt accounts.

This is some high octane copium. You’re just gonna broadly assume that most users consume porn on Reddit? Like that has any relevance, even if it was true?

Going by the memes many did seem unaware of the decision to allow NSFW content, but given the site wide opt in it seems reasonable to allow.

No, it’s putting porn on people’s screens without consent.

Then you haven’t really thought about the situation at hand, then. Like, at all.

Imagine sending a picture to your friend. Unprompted, undiscussed. If the picture is a meme, we can both surely agree that that isn’t problematic in any way. If the picture is a dick pic, you’ve just committed sexual harassment.

Even though both were sent without explicit consent, the context of your existing relationship matters, and – in the context of you and your friend not sending sexually explicit photos to one another on the regular – the lack of consent in the case of sexual material is a significant issue.

This is essentially the problem with the scenario at hand. The people who suddenly had pornography show up on their front page did not consent to it by subscribing to a porn sub. Yes, even if it was voted on by a tiny minority of subscribers, and yes, even if the sub essentially became a porn sub – the eleven million existing subscribers didn’t consent to seeing that material.

There is, frankly, essentially no way to take an existing, large subreddit, with millions of users, and make it a porn subreddit without violating the consent of a significant chunk of those users. No matter how much the moderators want to do so.

Please don’t tell me I need to explain sexual consent to you.

Because it wasn’t a porn sub before. They had, what, eleven million users? If you can’t see the problem there, I think you’re being a little disingenuous.

I’m not surprised. To my understanding, IAF was only permitting people post hardcore pornography, for example, so… they flew pretty close to the sun, there.

Obviously a pretty effective form of protest, in terms of being disruptive, but I can’t imagine a world where that doesn’t bring down the boot.