Yeah, it’s a legitimately difficult situation trying to balance effective safety measures with the needs of teens and young adults to be able to participate in civil discourse. And I’ll be the first to admit that I do not have a good answer for how to handle this.

Also I’m pretty new around here but so far my experience has been that Lemmy does not strike me as a welcoming place(period) so that likely goes double for anyone with an undercooked prefrontal cortex.

While I believe this is largely correct, it does not support your conclusion.

You are assuming that the participation would need to be to the benefit of the community to be worthwhile. That’s not the case. The party which stands to benefit most is the teen themselves. They may not be able to meaningfully participate in the kinds of discussion examples you have listed, but they could try.

After all, not being an ignorant dumbass is a skill that must be learned, and one that (as evidenced by this thread) many adults never managed to learn for themselves.

I completely agree and think that the proposal in the article really misses the mark.

However, to claim the issue is moot because “15 year olds are not children” (as some have done in this thread) is patently ridiculous. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion exposes its flaws — which was the point of my previous comment.

Cool. So Epstein did nothing wrong. Got it!

The cognitive dissonance in this thread is astounding.

Nonononono! Don’t shutter the conversation. You redirect and up-sale! Don’t say:

Unfortunately we are unable to offer any discounts on our current product line at this time.

Have a great day.

Instead try:

Unfortunately we are unable to offer any discounts on our current product line at this time.

Would you like me to show you some of the models available in our post-consumer-recycled line? Or would you prefer something from our Virgin Silicon line — because there’s nothing like the first time™.

And all because of a small fee for those who get a new batty and chose not to recycle the old one. Like the Aldi quarter of recycling.

You are a special person.

The fact that you had prior knowledge of Poe’s law and still chose to act the way you did even after I explicitly stated that I was making a joke (and even posted a gif that frames the context) is truly impressive.

https://ethereum.foundation/ef-mandate.pdf <- that’s the joke. I am making fun of them. Holy hell.

This is America.

What in the AI psychosis? This whole thing is bat-shit crazy.

Not really unique to chatbots. Here’s a couple of entries from the D.O.S. (which is apparently pay walled now? Turns out the top result is a site by a grifter completely unrelated to John Koenig).

Anecdoche

n.

a conversation in which everyone is talking but nobody is listening— instead merely overlaying words like a spoken game of Scrabble, each player borrowing bits of others’ anecdotes to build out their own, until we reach a point when we all run out of things to say.

From anecdote, a short and often amusing account of real-life events + synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a part stands for the whole. Pronounced “uh-nek-doh-kee.”

Anechosis

n.

a state of exhaustion with continually being told what you want to hear, whether by marketers pandering to you or acquaintances afraid of causing offense; the longing for someone to have the heart to finally call you out on your bullshit, challenge your long-held assumptions, and push you to become a better person—which would be a far deeper kindness than trying to live and let live.

From an-, against + echoes. Pronounced “an-uh-koh-sis.”

You got a source for this?

Yeah, fair enough.

I’m sorry, but it’s not my responsibility to educate you about copyright law, even though I have done what I could. I wish you the best. Good day.

When i write a sentence then do i have a copyright upon it which i can defend in law?

Umm… Yes. Yes, you do. That’s how copyright works…

The current models are all trained with data which at least some larger creator (book writer or whatever) does not want a model to be trained on.

Is this not antithetical to your stance? Or are you saying that only those entities large enough to defend themselves against the likes of OpenAI and Anthropic are deserving of being paid for use of their works?

The current models are under the current law unsustainable.

I completely agree with you here, but something like a class action lawsuit is not a viable solution.

You understand the scale right? This is a combinatorial problem: the plaintiffs in this case would be every individual and company that has ever existed, and the defendants would be not only the AI companies, but also anyone who has ever used or published AI generated content. That’s a wishful thought, not a realistic solution.

Holy shit! What an excellent idea.

I always advocate for putting AI models under UNESCO stewardship

As now will I.

Copyright isn’t something you “get.” It’s something that comes with the production, no extra steps required.

You’ve accidentally come upon the other reason why your example doesn’t hold in the training data case. How do you suss out who actually holds the copyright on that data.

Take my shitpost for example. Whonis the copyright holder? Me the author? Reddit the platform I published on? What if the source was an Internet Archive snapshot?

Do you earnestly believe this could work in practice?