Thats a fair opinion, although I think its likely to cause the opposite reactions than you listed. But again, who really knows.

Also I’m sure most people in most places are good people, just like anywhere, Lebanon included.

Sort of telling how you can teach people to associate good thoughts with awful things. Conditioning is a bitch.

I’ll save you time. Licensed factory in Europe, making Chinese beepers, was compromised or owned by Israel. They then put explosives in the pagers and set them to explode when paged a certain code.

They knew hezbollah was the purchaser, and would disperse them amongst its members.

I think its stupid unless it stopped some imminent horrible attack. Otherwise, Israel has given themselves away, and only killed 8 people for it. Maybe they had trouble rigging them to steal their communications.

Oh so everyone there who had a pager must have been a bad guy. Got it, solid logic. Can’t wait for the war to spread further.

As does america have non-combat elements too.

Its not rocket science how they did it. What is the impressive part? Are we really just going to say civilians don’t matter? Is it impressive to you because of how many people were hurt?

In no way is it required to respect the craft or the method.

National order isnt based on tit for tat. If someone commits a war crime against you it doesnt mean you get to do it too.

In my opinion the time of day they chose to blow them shows they wanted as much collateral damage as they could.

What’s the advantage of making excuses for committing war crimes?

Because anyone within 5 meters of the pager also was hurt.

People will use whatever tools available to them. If their community supports it they will do it publicly, if not they will hide it. Drug use is a great example in some cases.

If Australia allows people to convert their families to a company just to avoid taxes, then thats on the government to fix, not the people to stop doing.

As long as there is no UBI there will always be pressure to use all tools available when things get hard.

It becomes harmful once you start selling it for profit based on its similarity to a real person.

Just so you know that does happen quite a lot on a small scale. Copyright law tends to be applied once a business pattern is established around the problematic content.

Some people get away with it selling at craft fairs and such and just noone ever hears about it.

Well you did just state my first point in more words, so yes I agree, since artists aren’t getting paid in most cases anyways, stealing their work is sort of morally grey, but mostly because its not their work anymore.

But thats not true across the board, and its impossible to know which companies are the ones that do treat their employees well enough that it would affect them to steal it.

So why don’t we maybe repair that bond between an artist and their work so that it makes sense not to steal art from people again? Copyright could be changed to do this couldn’t it?

Well that all doesn’t matter much. If AI is used to cause harm, it should be regulated. If that frustrates you then go get the laws changed that allow shitty companies to ruin good ideas.

Same as anything else, if it causes someone harm (in american financial harm counts) it gets regulated.

There are exceptions to allow people to disregard laws as well. Its legal to execute a death row prisoner.

One is banned because it can affect someone’s earnings, and is theft, the other is not banned because noone is harming another party by making a pencil drawing of a celebrity or scene.

Its theft, which is against the law to do against a company or person. Its similar to trading in empty boxes at GameStop or sending back boxes full of rocks to amazon.

Although most people seem to just pick a side based on whether they think that company should exist or not.

Should just be fraud right?

So what if its closer? Its still not an accurate description, because thats not what AI does.

Its hard to justify stealing entertainment. Most arguments are centered around the fact the artist usually makes almost nothing so you aren’t even paying them for it.

Copyright makes sense to protect creativity to an extent, until we figure out some other way artists can make a living.

Yeah but then they’d be more of a support company that also happens to create the service. You could pay anyone for support it doesnt have to be the primary source.

The problem with this style of verification is that there is no authoritative source. Neither the AI nor yourself is capable of verifying for accuracy. The AI also has no expectation of being accurate or revised.

I don’t see how this is any better than running google searches on reddit or other message boards looking for relevant discussions and basing your knowledge on those.

If AI was enabling something new that might be worth it but allowing someone to find slightly less/more shitty message board posts 10% more efficiently isnt worth what’s happening. There are countries that are capable of regulation as a field fills out, why can’t america? We banned tiktok in under a month didnt we?