I first thought this was a bad idea by Paypal but you opened my eyes

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.

I thought you were talking about “makaronivelli” before you specified the milk was for drinking.

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?

Chat is this real

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.

Lainatakseni erästä aiemmin kirjoittamaani kommenttia:

They are arguing in bad faith and they know it. The peace-absolutism is in a long tradition of pro-Soviet propaganda, where the only obstacle to eternal world peace was countries (particularly those opposing the Soviet Union) having any military at all. (Soviet Union was of course allowed to have a strong military to “protect” itself from Western, particularly US, “aggression”).

All of the calls for “peace” and “diplomacy” now are exactly the same: calls to stop actively resisting Russian aggression, and in the longer term to destroy your capability of being able to resist in the first place. And, if possible, to simply roll over to all Russian demands because you aren’t being “diplomatic” otherwise.

War, in this propagandistic view, is only caused by the country being invaded defending itself; after all, if they simply allowed Russia to take over, there would be no war. In the best case, the situation would have been solved through “diplomacy”, i.e. simply agreeing to all Russian demands. That way war would have been avoided, right?

And because no sensible person wants war, the leaders saying “no” to Russian demands (and who therefore must not want diplomacy, right?) must want war either because they’re corrupt and want to profit off of the war, because they’re “russophobic” “nazis” who “unreasonably” hate Russia, or because they’re being used as pawns by someone else, most likely the US. Because no one wants war, and therefore should be willing to conduct diplomacy over any questions (i.e. roll over to Russian demands) if they were not being manipulated in some way. And that is why poor Russia is “forced” to invade countries because of the US and the West, because being US pawns they are not willing to be diplomatic (i.e. agree to all Russian demands).

Anyone in the West supporting the invaded country is therefore a “warmongerer” if they do not support “diplomacy” (= letting Russia have whatever they want). Because there would be no war if Russia could just do whatever they want with no resistance.

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.

Yeah, to paraphrase something I once read on the other site, “unknown” doesn’t mean “I don’t know”.

Also Conquest of Paradise for me! I had the tune randomly pop up in my head for well over a decade, probably close to two, without having any idea what it was. Every few years I tried finding out what it was, but to no avail. Online melody searches weren’t that good, and when I hummed the melody to people or played it on the piano, people either had no clue or, at best, were like “that sounds familiar but I have no idea what it is”. I even toyed with the idea that I had come up with the melody myself, though I did find it unlikely.

I can’t describe the happiness I felt when I finally discovered the actual song when I once again tried finding it, this time by humming into Google’s music search thing

My main problem with STAR is that it seems to me like you should always give the highest available score to all candidates you don’t mind winning and give the other candidates a zero, because you know there are people giving the highest possible score to your dispreferred candidates and you want to offset their score total as much as possible.

So I feel like strategic voting would mostly trivialize STAR into a form of approval voting, which would still overly benefit the powers-that-be since most people would approve of the established candidates while fewer people would approve of the other candidates, who might be able to eke out a majority in ranked choice voting since they might be higher ranked than the established candidates.

But maybe I’m just not seeing the other strategic dimensions to giving the middle scores to some candidates.

Edit: The link by @themeatbridge is a very good explanation of the benefits of STAR over ranked choice voting! I for one am convinced.