My guy, you should stop feeding the troll. I can keep coming up with bullshit indefinitely. The intent of my original facetious reply was to point out how ridiculous it is to react to a clearly ridiculous and unrealistic suggestion as if it was the most seriously considered expression of an actual policy suggestion ever. But it turns out some people just can’t not take every single thing that is said with the utmost seriousness.
Of course a nuked country will be a nuked country. That’s beside the point, moving the goalposts.
That’s the point
No, they can return after the country has been glassed.
Yes, but in reality nobody is going to nuke anybody, and certainly not because a random internet user vents their frustration at the situation with a clearly metaphorical and exaggerated request. Your reply was an overly literal reading of the comment, like replying to “go fuck yourself” with “…you realize that’s not possible, right?”
I simply replied to your literal interpretation with a literal interpretation of my own.
Sure you can, move the civilians out first.
They didn’t say anything about civilians
I’m not as against these “sad narratives” as you are, but I still think that this one just doesn’t make much sense. Photons hit random planets and stuff all of the time, so arguably hitting a living sentient being is one of the coolest things that could happen to a photon.
So at best we don’t know whether or not AI CSAM without CSAM training data is possible. “This AI used CSAM training data” is not an answer to that question. It is even less of an answer to the question “Should AI generated CSAM be illegal?” Just like “elephants get killed for their ivory” is not an answer to “should pianos be illegal?”
If your argument is that yes, all AI CSAM should be illegal whether or not the training used real CSAM, then argue that point. Whether or not any specific AI used CSAM to train is an irrelevant non sequitur. A lot of what you’re doing now is replying to “pencils should not be illegal just because some people write bad stuff” with the equivalent of “this one guy did some bad stuff before writing it down”. That is completely unrelated to the argument being made.
So why are you posting all over this thread about how CSAM was included in the training set if that is in your opinion ultimately irrelevant with regards to the topic of the post and discussion, the morality of using AI to generate CSAM?
I know. So to confirm, you’re saying that you’re okay with AI generated CSAM as long as the training data for the model didn’t include any CSAM?
Sounds to me it would be more like outlawing grand pianos because of all of the dead elephants - while some people are claiming that it is possible to make a grand piano without killing elephants.
Yeah, the point of the joke is that crop rotation has been practiced for literally thousands of years. It was an agricultural invention which gave ancient cultures significantly higher crop yields, enabling a huge number of societal, cultural and scientific developments. The joke is based on the idea that before crop rotation was discovered, some people might have considered it a silly idea, delaying the developments enabled by the significantly increased crop yields.
Oh not at all, they’re patented Skinner burgers, an old family recipe.
Coming from a country bordering Russia and having had to deal with their bullshit for my entire life, the most frustrating thing about Russian bullshit is that if they could just be normal, they could be an actually wealthy and significant European country in a few decades. But no, they have always had this HUGE inferiority complex, which means that they need to continuously prove that they’re great, powerful and important. And the only way they know how to prove their greatness and importance is to flex their “power” on their neighbors, including by militarily expanding their borders, while most of their “peer” countries (most importantly pretty much all of Europe) have moved on from this sort of view of being “powerful” after WW2 by the latest.
Nothing says “we’re on path towards inevitable victory” (as Russian shills like to claim) like nuclear saber rattling.
I mean.
One might be a coincidence.
Two out of two? Considering how few high profile whistleblowers there are, that is much more unlikely to be due to random chance, statistically speaking.
Similar to how it’s not impossible that someone might fall out of a window and die.
But if in a certain country, important people who have crossed the leadership keep falling out of windows, … well.
I wish Russians thought like you do.
In my language, the word for coal refers to both types, but you can specify “wood coal” or “rock coal” if necessary.
I first thought this was a bad idea by Paypal but you opened my eyes