Good focus on 1 point, sadly bad point to focus on.
What is lawful and legal, is not what is moral.
The Holocaust was legal.
Try again. Let’s start. Should the invention of ai have an influence on how we treat data? Is there a difference between reproducing a work after the author’s death and using possible millennia of public domain data to destroy the economical validity of a profession? If there is, should public domain law consider that? Has the general public discuss these points and come to a consensus? Has that consensus been put in law?
No? Sounds like the law is not up to date to the tech. So not only is legal not Moral, legal isn’t up to date.
You understand the point of public domain, right? You understand that even if you were right (you aren’t), that it would resolve the other issues, right?
Yes. We should never have been idiotic with patents and other forms of gatekeeping information. Information is always free and all forms of controlling it is folly
Then don’t gatekeep e.g. your naked body and your loved one’s secrets! Information should always be fee and all forms of controlling it is folly! Do it. While you are at it, your, and your family’s, full name and place of employment please. Thanks!
Oh wait, you don’t want to do that right? Some information is private. You have some rights on some information. Ok then let’s talk about it.
We are talking about access to information and you said that it should be granted to everyone without any limitations. How are we not talking about that information?
Unless you are to finally admit that there is different kind of information and different rules that we apply to them, We are talking about your nudes too.
When you finally admit that, then we can have a discussion about what rules we apply to information. Then we can talk about “public information”. Until then, I don’t know what to tell you.
You talked about information. Not public, not private, information.
Your responses heavily imply that you think public and private information should be treated differently, but you keep talking about how information should be free and open. So you are willing and believing that there are rules. So why shouldn’t public information be public information while not being allowed to use for e.g. ai without permission? You can allow copying and modifying of information without allowing e.g. it being used for ai training. You can make that rule, just like you can different rules for private information than for public information.
I really don’t understand what you don’t understand.
Put it out and it’s public. At that point it is folly to regulate. If personal information is taken and spread, the culprit has committed a crime but in my opinion the rest is folly. I thought it was obvious so I omitted the intensely self explanatory details
Oh so it is a crime! So you totally could make it illegal to use public information to train ai without consent. Making it really difficult to collect billions in funding. Thanks for the admission.
If you think I did, you should sue your school for child abuse.
First, a comparison can be an equation, but doesn’t have to be. Trying to downplay the Holocaust by equating it to something like ai, would be insane and insulting to the victims. But if the “comparison” is literally an reductio ad absurdum, it is obvious not an equation and not downplaying it. The whole point of reductio ad absurdum is to go for the absurd consequences of the statement. I don’t think legal is moral, so the shared property of legality (at the respective time) is not something that I would use to judge either of them. I don’t judge the Holocaust by it’s legality. Its horrors go far beyond anything in which the legality is relevant. That is why we had the Nuremberg trials. So by using reductio ad absurdum, I implied that the consequences would be absurd, which implies I think that it isn’t the same, that I am not comparing and that i think legality is a horrible ground on which to judge something, so obviously I wouldn’t judge the Holocaust by its legality and consequently I wouldn’t compare the Holocaust to ai because of their legality at their respective times. Their shared attribute “legality” is irrelevant to me. The person who believes that legality is a good way to judge something, consequently would have to equate holocaust with ai, at least on the bases of their legality.
So if you want to take offense in “comparing” the Holocaust with ai, then you have my support and go and shit on the person who implies that they are the same in a relevant way. The person saying that legal is moral.
So we went from “Omg, you are comparing ai to the Holocaust” to “intellectual property isn’t real”. I guess that means you realized how silly you were. Good job.
I would invite you to a discussion about what intellectual property is and isn’t and how real it consequently is, but at this point, I am not sure, you would be able to have that conversation. You seem to prefer short outburst of thought, instead of careful consideration of these thoughts.
I wish you a great day and that you can reflect on your behavior and whether or not this is for your own good. Take care.
That is what I am talking about. Impulsive outburst of consciousness, based entirely in emotions. Do you see how a conversation is difficult like that? In emotional state, people often project their feelings on others, given your words and emotional state, I want to take the opportunity to wish you good luck in your life. There will be better times. Stay strong.
Good focus on 1 point, sadly bad point to focus on.
What is lawful and legal, is not what is moral.
The Holocaust was legal.
Try again. Let’s start. Should the invention of ai have an influence on how we treat data? Is there a difference between reproducing a work after the author’s death and using possible millennia of public domain data to destroy the economical validity of a profession? If there is, should public domain law consider that? Has the general public discuss these points and come to a consensus? Has that consensus been put in law?
No? Sounds like the law is not up to date to the tech. So not only is legal not Moral, legal isn’t up to date.
You understand the point of public domain, right? You understand that even if you were right (you aren’t), that it would resolve the other issues, right?
Yes. We should never have been idiotic with patents and other forms of gatekeeping information. Information is always free and all forms of controlling it is folly
Then don’t gatekeep e.g. your naked body and your loved one’s secrets! Information should always be fee and all forms of controlling it is folly! Do it. While you are at it, your, and your family’s, full name and place of employment please. Thanks!
Oh wait, you don’t want to do that right? Some information is private. You have some rights on some information. Ok then let’s talk about it.
Not what we are talking about. But you know that. Do you want to explain how to police public information without it being folly?
We are talking about access to information and you said that it should be granted to everyone without any limitations. How are we not talking about that information?
Unless you are to finally admit that there is different kind of information and different rules that we apply to them, We are talking about your nudes too.
When you finally admit that, then we can have a discussion about what rules we apply to information. Then we can talk about “public information”. Until then, I don’t know what to tell you.
I work with ip and still think it is folly. Idk why you spam about private information, that’s not what anyone was asking or discussing about
You talked about information. Not public, not private, information.
Your responses heavily imply that you think public and private information should be treated differently, but you keep talking about how information should be free and open. So you are willing and believing that there are rules. So why shouldn’t public information be public information while not being allowed to use for e.g. ai without permission? You can allow copying and modifying of information without allowing e.g. it being used for ai training. You can make that rule, just like you can different rules for private information than for public information.
I really don’t understand what you don’t understand.
Put it out and it’s public. At that point it is folly to regulate. If personal information is taken and spread, the culprit has committed a crime but in my opinion the rest is folly. I thought it was obvious so I omitted the intensely self explanatory details
Oh so it is a crime! So you totally could make it illegal to use public information to train ai without consent. Making it really difficult to collect billions in funding. Thanks for the admission.
Are you really comparing computer program who spits words with a fucking genocide? Wtf
If you think I did, you should sue your school for child abuse.
First, a comparison can be an equation, but doesn’t have to be. Trying to downplay the Holocaust by equating it to something like ai, would be insane and insulting to the victims. But if the “comparison” is literally an reductio ad absurdum, it is obvious not an equation and not downplaying it. The whole point of reductio ad absurdum is to go for the absurd consequences of the statement. I don’t think legal is moral, so the shared property of legality (at the respective time) is not something that I would use to judge either of them. I don’t judge the Holocaust by it’s legality. Its horrors go far beyond anything in which the legality is relevant. That is why we had the Nuremberg trials. So by using reductio ad absurdum, I implied that the consequences would be absurd, which implies I think that it isn’t the same, that I am not comparing and that i think legality is a horrible ground on which to judge something, so obviously I wouldn’t judge the Holocaust by its legality and consequently I wouldn’t compare the Holocaust to ai because of their legality at their respective times. Their shared attribute “legality” is irrelevant to me. The person who believes that legality is a good way to judge something, consequently would have to equate holocaust with ai, at least on the bases of their legality.
So if you want to take offense in “comparing” the Holocaust with ai, then you have my support and go and shit on the person who implies that they are the same in a relevant way. The person saying that legal is moral.
Intellectual property isn’t real dumbass
So we went from “Omg, you are comparing ai to the Holocaust” to “intellectual property isn’t real”. I guess that means you realized how silly you were. Good job.
I would invite you to a discussion about what intellectual property is and isn’t and how real it consequently is, but at this point, I am not sure, you would be able to have that conversation. You seem to prefer short outburst of thought, instead of careful consideration of these thoughts.
I wish you a great day and that you can reflect on your behavior and whether or not this is for your own good. Take care.
Yeah shut up idiot with your smug tone. I bet your life is shit
That is what I am talking about. Impulsive outburst of consciousness, based entirely in emotions. Do you see how a conversation is difficult like that? In emotional state, people often project their feelings on others, given your words and emotional state, I want to take the opportunity to wish you good luck in your life. There will be better times. Stay strong.
I’m hungry