💀

The elites will just dodge the draft anyway. At least without a draft, a sufficiently unpopular war is more likely to be shut down by people refusing to enlist. Also, you can’t advocate for slavery by arguing that it solves some other problem.

so that the politicians who send other people’s children off to fight also have to send their own.

Right, because politicians always follow the same rules we do and totally wouldn’t just find a way to dodge the draft.

Most soldiers in a “professional” army are there because their families are poor and they have few other options to make a living.

You’re right. Many feel forced into it by unlivable economic conditions. That doesn’t mean we should answer wage slavery with more slavery.

You’re right, but the economy forcing people into wage slavery is a separate issue that also needs to be addressed.

It sounds like we need an external regulatory agency to keep them in check, not slavery.

Drafts should be considered a war crime against your own people. If you can’t defend your country without a draft, it doesn’t deserve to be defended because there are obviously not enough people willing to fight for it. Turning your citizens into slaves and sending them into the meat grinder makes you a monster.

I tried it again and the difference was astounding! Instead of waiting multiple minutes to send one message, I only had to wait a whole minute!

I like the idea of a federated chat platform, but I’ll have to stick to discord for now, it would seem.

I think it was about a year or two ago.

I had a terrible, completely unusable experience with Matrix before I found out what it was made with. It took several minutes to load, 5-10 minutes to join a room, and about a couple minutes per message (which would just not send half the time). It was slower than email.

The problem with Matrix is that it sucks. It’s so comically laggy that you’d be able to have a conversation more efficiently in a Lemmy comments section than in a Matrix room. Consequences of trying to make a scalable backend for a real-time app in fucking Python, I suppose.

To be clear, my position is that copyright law should be loosened, not tightened. I know that it’s unreasonable and infeasible to limit AI like that, both for practical and competitive reasons.

When I said that it could be shown to generate copyrighted content, I didn’t mean it had a chance, I meant showing actual examples of it doing so. I also think that it should be allowed to do that, but so should everyone else. In my opinion, derivative works should almost always be allowed unless they can be proven to cause significant harm to the original creator.

It’s worth noting that affirmative action is not an example of equity as shown here. AA would be more like giving the left kid the right kid’s ladder so he could stack it on top of his own. Then, the right kid can’t get any fruit and the left kid might get some fruit, but also has a decent chance of just falling over and getting hurt because you can’t stack 2 ladders and expect things to go well.

Equity would be more like offering special classes to kids in disadvantaged communities to help them better prepare for college, and justice would be using federal money to make sure all public schools have adequate funding to provide a high quality education.

If an AI has been trained on copyrighted material and can be shown to be capable of reproducing something close enough to said material, would that be infringement already or not? If you use a paid service like Midjourney to generate copyrighted content, the company is essentially selling you access to copyrighted content they lack the rights to.

I wasn’t aware that it was just YT’s system that had messed up and not the legal system. Crazy that one company has that much power.

If industrial secrecy is a problem, make that illegal too. We have a right to know where our products come from, anyway. If pharmaceuticals need to benefit in order to do research, instead of patents outlawing reproduction of their products entirely, just make other companies give the original researcher a cut of the profit while the patent lasts. A 10-20% royalty should be more than enough to incentivise research while still preventing price-fixing and monopolies.

No idea if my comment went through the first time, so trying again: “But that rarity is entirely manufactured.”

But that rarity is entirely manufactured.

Fair enough. When my history was off, the recommendations were bad. I just made my bookmark link directly to the Subscriptions page.

Look at this.

Heart Afire is a song by Defqwop featuring Strix released on May 21, 2016, and removed from the the NCS YouTube channel on March 28, 2019 due to a copyright strike by Lemaitre, as this song sounded too similar to Lemaitre’s song Closer.

Having heard both songs, they really aren’t all that similar.

Pharmaceutical patents are insanely harmful to the average consumer, at least in the US. Only the rich and powerful or those willing to go deeply into debt are able to benefit from all of that extra research.

Except that programmers get sued for taking their expertise to competitors and musical artists get sued for using similar melodies. Give everyone the freedom you want to give AI or don’t give it to anyone, but carving out an exception for AI is just plainly wrong.

It’s true that restricting what AI can train on inhibits societal progress, but it’s consistent with current copyright laws because an AI is not a human and can’t be treated as anything more than an algorithm. What we’re learning here is that AI is bringing to light a problem in intellectual property law that’s plagued us for a long time: intellectual property being overly protected is harmful to society as a whole. I wouldn’t be opposed to AI training on data on the internet if people got the same treatment: let people reuse each other’s melodies, don’t protect likenesses so strictly, and for the love of humanity, no more pharmaceutical patents!