todd_bonzalez

Nobody said anything anti-gun. This is a legitimate statistic.

If it feels anti-gun to you, it's probably your conscience asking you if this is an acceptable side effect of unlimited gun rights. Maybe listen to that voice and think of an answer to that question.

Somebody really needs to do something about this kid.

The loss of his entire studio and all of his trademarks is going to have a huge impact on his ability to succeed moving forward. Starting a new show on a fringe platform with no budget is honestly quite desperate. His best path to success is to try to ride a wave of victimhood, and he can't do that without once again spreading lies about the Sandy Hook families, so he either needs to find a new angle, or he's diving headfirst into another lawsuit that he will absolutely lose.

The author of the article is right not to believe this claim. The author can say that their software was intended for whatever noble uses they want. We know from experience that software has mainstream off-label use.

Is BitTorrent really a tool for downloading community content like open films and Linux distros? Because that's what the creators say it's for. It's not untrue.

Is Jellyfin or Plex a tool for organizing your ripped collection of CDs, DVDs, and Blu-rays? That's what the developers say. It's not untrue

Is Tor a tool for protecting dissidents? That's what they say it is. It really is that. But is that all it is?

This tool might be useful for identifying sex trafficking victims, just as a nudifying app might be useful for identifying victims of involuntary pornography.

But on the other side of this is that nudifying apps are more likely to be used to create involuntary pornography, and makeup-removal apps are more likely to be used to harass women.

No reason to ban AI technology or anything, but no reason to pretend that tools like this aren't used for off-label and sometimes nefarious purposes.

I've edited people's makeup and faces as part of the process of learning Photoshop, so I understand what you're saying. There are perfectly normal applications for this.

The issue is intent. A lot of men think that women are "lying" when they wear makeup. They think that the most valuable quality a woman can have is natural beauty, and treat makeup as trickery.

There's no shortage of men who think "You'd look better without makeup" is a compliment too.

An app like this would inevitably be used to help streamline the process of harassIng and negging women online.

There's also the matter that women can put great time and effort into their makeup, and having someone remove their hard work from an image and throw it back at them is quite insulting. A makeup artist is still an artist and they likely don't want their peers wielding tools designed specifically to nullify their work.

It shouldn't be illegal or anything. No law against being an asshole. But it isn't an app that will be used with good intent in most cases, and we should definitely pay attention because the "modify pictures of other people's faces and bodies" use case for AI appears to have the potential to do a great deal of harm.

Distributors for content, and no more exclusive content for platforms. Make it work the way music streaming works.

You sign up for one service and you get access to an unfathomably gigantic library of music. It doesn't matter what service you sign up for either, you're going to get a similarly huge library, and it will include most everything you could find on any competing service so you only need one subscription. The only thing you really choose is UI, device compatibility, and special features.

Imagine if there were two dozen competing music streaming services, and they all had completely different non-overlapping libraries. Maybe Sony has one just for their labels. Maybe another is just for a handful of EDM labels. A third just for country and bluegrass, but only specific labels. A fourth just for indie labels. A fifth for Rap and R&B. Lots of old stuff is completely unrepresented, because it wasn't deemed profitable by any available platform, or there's just too much paperwork and nobody wants to do it.

This is what we have with video streaming right now. Lots of different IP owners running streaming services only with their own limited catalogs. If you want to watch just one show on each platform, you would need a subscription for every show. If you have diverse tastes in movies and television, you are going to be paying a fortune to access it.

Well, now that you know that this content is AI generated, and that this community doesn't allow that, your next move should likely be whatever a responsible member of the community would do when made aware that they aren't meeting the expectations of their peers. I suppose we'll get to see what that looks like, if you're not off flying a kite yourself.

Toddler is age 1-3, so they are just about done.

The headline rambles a little bit, and by the time I got to ", died", I thought the toddler was dead.

Listened to the entire Faithless discography this week. RIP Maxi Jazz.

Those people still voted for Hillary and Biden.

If the anonymous ramblings of online trolls convinced you otherwise, I dunno what to tell you.