lmmarsano

@lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube removes 'gender identity' from hate speech policy⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  Why even bother with a hate speech policy? Oh, right, money.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI's move to allow generating "Ghibly stlye" images isn't just a cute PR stunt. It is an expression of dominance and the will to reject and refuse democratic values. It is a display of power⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  The "platinum rule"

  1. falls apart when people expect something wrong or unreasonable
  2. isn’t reciprocal
  3. fails to judge actions based on whether the actions themselves are right or wrong.

  While the golden rule has flaws, too, (why someone came up with categorical imperative), at least it’s reciprocal.

  The platinum rule is to treat others as they would want. One way to treat others is to let them do as they want. People would want that, so according to the platinum rule, we should. Can we oppose them? People wouldn’t want that, so we shouldn’t.

  The platinum rule obligates actions followers may disagree with (eg, someone wants treatment others think is wrong). To address that, a follower may want to be treated in ways that don’t create unwanted obligations. If we disagree about the right way to be treated, then we give them unwanted obligations. Thus, we shouldn’t disagree.

  In effect, the platinum rule prohibits dissent, which is unjust. This platinum looks more like pyrite.

  In particular, the platinum rule obligates the artist to let & not oppose someone who wants to express themselves with derivative art. Expressing oneself with derived art is not even an act done to or treatment of the artist, so arguing for respecting the artist with the platinum rule is questionable.

  Anyhow, in a discussion about democratic values (contention of the linked article), no position on whether an artist should be respected matters, because it clarifies nothing in the defense of democratic values. “Respecting wishes” isn’t a democratic value and neither is being a good person. Individual liberties such as freedom of expression are democratic values. Defending that democratic value means allowing whatever regardless of whether we should respect artists. That’s why I wrote it doesn’t matter & such arguments are “futile & senseless”.

  It’s also why I don’t state my position on it: it’s a red herring that doesn’t defend democratic values, which I’m arguing to do while the linked article argues an undemocratic message (exercise of free expression is wrong) that purports to be prodemocratic. Even if I agree with (I could!), it’s beside the point.

  I think it’s worth pointing out that respect doesn’t mean fulfilling someone’s wishes or treating them however they want. While that would be nice, satisfying nonobligatory expectations is not a duty, and not doing it is neither right nor wrong. Respect means treating someone fairly, justly, which includes accepting their freedom not to appease every expectation. Claiming we should always respect people’s wishes is bizarre and indicates lack of experience or failure to imagine how that obviously goes wrong. We can’t satisfy everyone, nor are we here to. This just seems like basic sense.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI's move to allow generating "Ghibly stlye" images isn't just a cute PR stunt. It is an expression of dominance and the will to reject and refuse democratic values. It is a display of power⁩ ⁨⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  Not at all: logical ethical principles (golden rule, harm principle, freedom of the individual) & basic individual liberties in a free society. Such a society where people are free to express themselves without doing actual harm is a benefit to the world “at large”. The alternative would be bleak.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI's move to allow generating "Ghibly stlye" images isn't just a cute PR stunt. It is an expression of dominance and the will to reject and refuse democratic values. It is a display of power⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  To answer your question, it’s more about arguing for basic freedoms consistently than about arguing for disrespect.

  When approaching these ethical questions, I think it’s best to focus on the individual & moral reciprocity: should someone be able to express themselves in a way that offends me? As long as it obeys the harm principle, the answer is yes. Accordingly, anyone should be free to express themselves with imagery in the style of Ghibli (using tools such as AI) even if it offends the studio’s founder, since it results in no actual harm.

  Since morality should be based on universal principles that don’t depend on contingent facts of an agent (such as their characteristics), I find it clarifies questions to approach technology with their non-technological equivalents. Would it be wrong to train a person to learn Ghibli art style so they could produce similar works in that style on demand? The harm of that is unclear, and I would think it’s fine.

  I don’t see a general duty for a free society to fulfill a wish unless it’s more of a claim right than a wish. In particular, criticism is a basic part of art: a duty not to criticize artists (who wish not to be criticized) would be unjust. While an artist should get credit (and all due intellectual property rights) for their work, once it’s out in the wild it takes on a life of its own: people are free to criticize it, parody it, & make fair use of it. Some wishes don’t need to be fulfilled.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI's move to allow generating "Ghibly stlye" images isn't just a cute PR stunt. It is an expression of dominance and the will to reject and refuse democratic values. It is a display of power⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  you’re a bad troll

  Haters gonna hate.

  the entire thread was about AI IP theft

  Answered: that part you didn’t read.

  It’s funny the largely anti-capitalist crowd doesn’t care about intellectual property until their favorite bogeyman shows up. Then they suddenly “care”: whatever it takes to take down AI, right? Even if it takes us down with it.

  I don’t like weak arguments that try to manipulate our emotions with our favorite targets of animus, nebulous claims of threats to cherished values, misuse of the word fascism. The person’s liberty to express themselves (even in ways we dislike with technology we dislike) is more important than an argument that rings false.

  you threw in a red herring

  Your moral hypocrisy? The coherence of your “moral code”?

  just to make personal attacks against me

  Does it suck to be judged for the actions you’ve demonstrated here?

  I’m also not here contemplating killing someone over dubious theft (of expressions!): that was all you.

  when you are challenged you claim abelism

  Also, whenever I come across it & feel moved: the casual inconsiderateness of online images of text is noticeable & easy to call out. Instead of distracting nonsense, turning that useless online outrage & public shame toward something concrete we ourselves can address today (like web accessibility) might do some tangible good for a change. Sustained long enough, it might catch on & make us more considerate in that 1 small yet noticeable way.

  it’s really pathetic and gives differently-abled people a bad name. you should be ashamed of yourself

  Does it? Someone here should be ashamed.

  If we’re done getting distracted with ourselves, the point remains that the article is a manipulative argument lacking substance.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI's move to allow generating "Ghibly stlye" images isn't just a cute PR stunt. It is an expression of dominance and the will to reject and refuse democratic values. It is a display of power⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  more images of text alt text that misleads people with accessibility needs

  So just to be clear

  • false “IP theft” (derivative works in a similar style aren’t theft) that harms no one violates your moral code
  • discrimination that objectively disadvantages the disabled is fine to you.

  Much can be understood about someone’s sense of morality in their actions (eligible for moral consideration) toward the disadvantaged. Does that person treat others as that person would want to be treated by them? Do they prioritize a cause that doesn’t address a credible harm over causes of credible harm?

  Your distorted moral code & moral claims are questionable.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI's move to allow generating "Ghibly stlye" images isn't just a cute PR stunt. It is an expression of dominance and the will to reject and refuse democratic values. It is a display of power⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Well, you’re wrong.

  image of text
  no alt text
  people with accessibility needs can’t read this

  And you’re ableist for that. Good job.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI's move to allow generating "Ghibly stlye" images isn't just a cute PR stunt. It is an expression of dominance and the will to reject and refuse democratic values. It is a display of power⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  When a machine imitates me, I take it as an insult to life itself.

  I might be flattered that someone bothered to make a machine do that. Massaging software to do that also takes skill?

  When GitHub Copilot lifts my opensource code, I’m not offended. I only cringe a bit when it’s bad code I regret committing.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI's move to allow generating "Ghibly stlye" images isn't just a cute PR stunt. It is an expression of dominance and the will to reject and refuse democratic values. It is a display of power⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  they needed respect to be creative unfettered

  Respectfully, I don’t see what unfettered here is adding. I clarified by editing the earlier comment to request to explain the logic.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI's move to allow generating "Ghibly stlye" images isn't just a cute PR stunt. It is an expression of dominance and the will to reject and refuse democratic values. It is a display of power⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Artists never needed anyone’s respect to be creative: the suggestion is belittling to artists.

  The real point is the article fails to argue well.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI's move to allow generating "Ghibly stlye" images isn't just a cute PR stunt. It is an expression of dominance and the will to reject and refuse democratic values. It is a display of power⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  We’re acting as if their opinion always mattered just as much as it does now.

  So not at all: gotcha.

  you should have the right to say “I don’t want you to imitate my exact style”

  You do.

  people should respect that

  “That’s just like your opinion, man.” meme goes here.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI's move to allow generating "Ghibly stlye" images isn't just a cute PR stunt. It is an expression of dominance and the will to reject and refuse democratic values. It is a display of power⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  If people only did what they should, then many acceptable actions would not get done. Art & leisure or posting here are optional: there’s no should there. It is a fallacy of modal logic to claim an action that is not one that should be done is an action that should not be done.

  There’s no reason you should post here, yet you did. Does that mean you’re “devoid of any morals” & “lack the integrity expected of a contributing adult”?

  Imitation & derivative works hardly rise to anything worth fussing over & losing total perspective. If you pay attention, all human creativity is derivative, nothing is truly original. Works build on & reference each other. Techniques get refined. It’s why we have genres. From the Epic of Gilgamesh & ancient mythology to modern storytelling, or the development of perspective in graphical works across time, there’s a clear process of imitation & development across all of it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI's move to allow generating "Ghibly stlye" images isn't just a cute PR stunt. It is an expression of dominance and the will to reject and refuse democratic values. It is a display of power⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Are we pretending this is new & their opinion matters in some new way it hasn’t before?

  There might be an argument to demand licensing royalties. Is that too capitalist? Maybe it’s fine if we work that into the word fascism somehow, wear it out a bit more to hit that sweet spot. Ooh.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI's move to allow generating "Ghibly stlye" images isn't just a cute PR stunt. It is an expression of dominance and the will to reject and refuse democratic values. It is a display of power⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Cool, another preachy argument that jumps to irrational conclusions. Because Ghibli?

  It is a display of power: You as an artist, an animator, an illustrator, a writer, any creative person are powerless. We will take what we want and do what we want. Because we can.

  Uh…we always could & did. Imitators have been doing that since always, long before LLMs. No one owns an art style.

  This is the idea of might makes right. The banner that every totalitarian and fascist government rallied under.

  Plagiarism & imitating art styles is fascism! Wow!

  Please make the word fascism more meaningless.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"Meritocracy"⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  image of text

  no alt text

  users with accessibility needs can’t read this

  🤦

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"Meritocracy"⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  image of text

  no alt text

  users with accessibility needs can’t read this

  Thanks.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  This would be a cause student activism could meaningfully engage unlike the usual fare that’d hardly move the needle.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK: That nazis Don't Actually Believe in Free Speech⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  because calling out nazis as liars about their interest in free speech has got to mean abandoning freedom of speech.

  No duh insincere people claiming to advocate for free speech don’t really mean it. This isn’t exactly new or debatable: what is argued with it is debatable.

  Earlier, you write about “statements nearly impossible to implement” & looking for “solutions” as if free speech needs solving. It doesn’t. Free speech is its own solution: it means free for speech you dislike and for speech to answer it. There’s nothing to solve but a lack of dedication to & endurance of free speech.

  application of ethical principles may change

  this is a nice summary statement here.

  Not to be lifted out of context, “people’s awareness & recognition of” is an important part of that quote.

  It doesn’t mean their application to the same circumstances changes. It means people discover that principles apply to circumstances they weren’t aware of or hadn’t recognized before. Like finally recognizing equal rights apply to women or minorities. Or that protesting topless is protected speech. Or that free speech applies to communication over new technologies.

  If you got that, though, then it’s a nice summary.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK: That nazis Don't Actually Believe in Free Speech⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Technologies

  yes

  and ethics continuously change

  no

  and adapt to new technologies

  Yes. Technology may change, people’s awareness & recognition of the application of ethical principles may change, however that doesn’t mean the principles themselves change.

  In terms of ethical reasoning, the essence of a matter may remain the same regardless of superficial guises (like technology). Adapting to a technology means applying the same general principles to novel, special cases. The principles concern rights & moral obligations people have to each other. Technology isn’t essential or relevant: the use of technology to perform an action is irrelevant to whether that action is right or wrong. The principles themselves can be timeless, immutable, and concerned only essentials necessary to evaluate actions. Thinking otherwise indicates confusion & someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

  I’m not interested in discussing the analogies of going from codexes to printed books vs. going from printed hard copies to human-human interactions being hijacked by human-passing bots, because to me these are evidently not comparable.

  Well, you’re wrong. They’re ultimately ways of disseminating expression. Just because you think some shiny, new, whizzy bang doodad fundamentally changes everything doesn’t mean it does.

  It probably indicates lack of historical perspective. These problems you think are new aren’t. People have long been complaining about lies spreading faster than truth, the public being disinformed & easily manipulated. In the previous century, the US has been through worse with disfranchisement, Jim Crow, internment camps, violent white supremacy, the red scare, McCarthyism. Yet now contagious stupidity spread through automations is an unprecedented threat unlike the contagious stupidity of the past? Large scale stupidity isn’t new. Freedom of speech was essential to anti-authoritarian, civil rights, and counterculture movements.

  There’s something contradictory trying to defend liberal society by surrendering a critical part of it.

  The fact that this discussion is taking place on Lemmy and not Xitter tells plenty about the actual complexities of this story.

  Not really. Decentralization is part of the solution.

  Some people never liked Twitter.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK: That nazis Don't Actually Believe in Free Speech⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Claim it, twist it, poison it, ruin it.

  Nothing new historically. You don’t have to accept their false premises by surrendering ideas to them.

  things people used to care about or that used to be innocuous

  Free speech is power, not innocuous: authorities fear it. It belongs to the people unless they surrender it.

  Used to care about? Only if you let them stop you.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK: That nazis Don't Actually Believe in Free Speech⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s just technology & fearmongering. Socrates was critical of writing out of concerns it would deteriorate minds & make superficial thinkers. Critics were concerned the printing press would lead to widespread moral degradation with the abundance of low-quality literature. People criticized television & media for brain rot.

  Guess what you’re the next iteration of?

  Technologies change, yet good principles don’t change with them.

  You know what you can do with free speech? More free speech. No one has a monopoly on LLM, bots, or algorithms. If people were inclined, they could launch these technologies to counter messages they oppose. People can choose to tune out & disregard expressions. Much more can be done with free speech.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK: That nazis Don't Actually Believe in Free Speech⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Does anyone?

  Yes, old-school liberals, the ACLU, etc.

  It’s bizarre & disappointing that newer generations seem to associate freedom of speech with right-wing authoritarians when freedom of speech has been a firmly liberal value advanced through the enlightenment & civil rights movement. Everyone ought to defend it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK: That nazis Don't Actually Believe in Free Speech⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  The point of my post is that some of the loudest proponents of free speech have ulterior motives.

  So what? Free speech is still right: everyone should fervently defend it. Whether they’re sincere about it or not, free speech is indispensable to a liberal democracy.

  The problem isn’t free speech. The problem is people who want to take it all away. If you fall into the trap of abandoning basic values from the enlightenment when they make it inconvenient, then you play into their game & help them set back society.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Amazon Boycot March 7-14th | No Purchases. Its time to disrupt the system.⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Wouldn’t it be easier to disrupt the system by—I don’t know—something old & boring like ask everyone to clean out/close their bank accounts at the same time, and cause a run on banks? Where do people come up with these ideas?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨John Oliver promoted alternatives to big tech in last night's episode, including Mastodon and Pixelfed⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  For projects, it slows progress.

  Your example of toxicity is linux maintainers resisting a newer programming language, not wanting to maintain additional bindings, and being stubborn about it? People decide whether to work & agree with each other, so what’s your definition of toxicity here? How’s moderation supposed to solve that: force people to agree & work together unwillingly? Seems rather authoritarian. People should only put words & images on a screen that someone approves? More authoritarian. And look at those imaginary problems we can solve!

  This goes back to the grandiose conceit I wrote about earlier: some people can’t get over themselves, take these words & images on a screen a bit too seriously, and feel they know better than others the right words & images to put on a screen, because of course they do. The rest of us know it’s just a bunch of self-important crap that doesn’t matter unless we make it matter, and we can ignore it or put our own words & images on a screen or go outside.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨John Oliver promoted alternatives to big tech in last night's episode, including Mastodon and Pixelfed⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I think that it’s just words & images on a screen that we could easily ignore like people did before, and people are indulging a grandiose conceit by thinking that moderation is that important or serves any greater cause than the interests of moderators. On social media that seems to be to serve the consumers, by which I mean the advertisers & commercial interests who pay for the attention of users. While the old internet approach of ignoring, gawking at the freakshow, or ridiculing/flaming toxic & hateful shit worked fine then resulting in many people disengaging, ragequitting, or going outside to do something better, that’s not great for advertisers protecting their brand & wanting to keep people pliant & unchallenged as they stay engaged in their uncritical filter bubbles & echo chambers.

  With old internet, safety didn’t wasn’t internet nanny, thought police shit, and stop burning my virgin eyes & ears. It was an anonymous handle, not revealing personally identifying information (a/s/l?), not falling for scams & giving out payment information (unless you’re into that kinky shit). Glad to see newer social media returning to some of that.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨John Oliver promoted alternatives to big tech in last night's episode, including Mastodon and Pixelfed⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Not friendica, which seems an obvious facebook alternative.

  Also, I think they’re onto something with their fuck it approach that every social media platform would benefit from. The internet was mostly that before. Content moderation primarily serves advertisers, it was never really for the people.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Mastodon is working to add the controversial 'quote posts' feature | TechCrunch⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Possible, unlikely, worse. The most accessible content is native text with the full content structure of the original.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Mastodon is working to add the controversial 'quote posts' feature | TechCrunch⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  what’s stopping me from just screenshoting

  Images of text? Accessibility.

  So, another sacrifice at the altar of social media to offer a deliberately broken feature at the expense of people who need accessibility.

  • ableism +1
  • accessibility 0

  Social media can be such trash.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How does this pic show that Elon Musk doesnt know SQL?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Nah, you’re ignoring context. Context matters. I’ll show.

  He’s not saying “This retard thinks the SSA uses SQL”.

  Can SSA not be called “the government”?

  He is saying “the government” which means all of it.

  Which government? The Brazilian government? Your state government? Your local government? No? How do you know? That’s right: context.

  By why stop there? There’s more context: a Social Security database was specifically mentioned.

  Does “the government” always mean all of it? When a federal agent knocks someone’s door & someone gripes “The goddamn government is after me!” do they literally mean the entire government? I know from context I or anyone else can informally refer to any part of the government at any level as “the government”. I think you know this.

  Likewise, when people refer to the ocean or the sky or the people, they don’t necessarily mean all of it or all of them.

  Another way to check meaning is to test whether a proposition still makes sense when something obvious unstated is explicitly written out.

  This retard thinks the government uses SQL. Why assume they use SQL here?

  Still make sense? Yes. Could that be understood from context without explicitly writing it out? Yes.

  To refrain:

  Use context.