• 0 Posts
  • 9 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle
  • I watched Apocalypto for a school paper at age 15 (from a list of options given to me), and honestly I think some softcore porn would have been better. Some rated R stuff is fine for a kid to watch, Apocalypto definitely wasn’t.

    Also that same year I researched and did presentations on Chinese history (was a prehistorical to maybe a couple hundred years ago timeline) and at least in my research I covered things like the foot tying thing (to make feet smaller) and that didn’t prepare me for the scene in Marco Polo (I think on Netflix) where that happened (and I didn’t finish the episode or continue the series because it’s just too fucked up).

    Porn can be fucked up, some porn is definitely NSFL, but there are a lot of things that are so much worse than the average porn site.

    I wish they actually tried to “protect the children” but the politicians are very clearly not.



  • The (my) comment that you responded to presented you a list of actual monopolies that have no alternatives on their platform. There was no “logic” presented, it was a statement of observation.

    The existence of the lawsuit does not mean there is proof, it means that Wolfire has enough of a case to begin discovery on two of their claims that the court is interested to find out more. That’s it.

    One of the claims is also very weird and I can’t actually find any information corroborating the claim besides the claim itself (re: Valve acquiring and shutting down World Opponent Network). The only thing I see is that Sierra was acquired by Havas who made WON into it’s own entity, then merged it with PrizeCentral under the name Flipside.com and the last WON game was released in 2006.

    The only thing relating to Valve I can see is that Valve announced Steam in 2002 and then they removed WON from their own games, which they had every right to do so.

    WG’s strongest claim is the MFN clause, and they actually have to prove that it’s for anticompetitiveness.






  • 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.