It's all circular reasoning trying to claim otherwise. "Neutrality" would be letting Ukraine fend for it self while Russia aggressively attacks their elections and implants stooges, which I frankly find absurd. Do I believe the US does something similar less crudely? Yes. Do I believe the EU or any other NATO member does? Hardly.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/partisanship...

I wouldn't call 51-44 "extreme leaning".

And this is ignoring the unsubstantiated claim that school systems are overwhelmingly run by liberals.

"I need to attack Ukraine because you're trying to get it into NATO, at which point attacking it is impossible/much harder." ~Putin, probably

NATO can be criticized for a lot, Afghanistan for example, but despite hearing the argument that Russia attacking Ukraine is NATOs fault, it's never been coherent.

As an outside observer, could it be that manosphere influence has an undue effect on young mens behavior, which (if true) would indeed be creepy for a lot of (most?) women, regardless if the execution is awkward or not.

I was certainly awkward in my teens/young adulthood, but in my singular experience, the maturity and confidence didn't come from acting cocky or showing off, but just treating anyone I had an interest in as a person first and foremost, and being comfortable and even open about my awkwardness and shortcomings.

That did wonders. Also accepting that a rejection doesn't mean a personal slight to you, nor a failure in appreciation of you from her, but merely a lack of mutual interest, which is also fine.

I think this is where most opinions differ.

Authors, painters, musicians (and at some points in my life I've considered myself among them) can have a lot of intent in creating something, and a lot of intent later to alter something, but at no point do I believe an artist owns their art once released/sold, outside of IP laws. What I mean is George Lucas has the legal right to only release the shitty remastered versions, but he certainly can't dictate they're better.

The whole concept of "death of the author" is about how regardless how a writer meant something to be interpreted, if another interpretation gets more traction, and is more coherent, it's hard to argue it's wrong.

No. It's specifically a complaint about the combination.

I have a problem with using information without paying IF you intend to charge for the value you get from that information. This is in line with many open source licenses.

I don't have a problem with either in isolation.

We're lacking in enforcement, not lagging regulation (regardless of if/that I agree it might be needed).

If we put this under a US focus lens, then I believe the unaccountability currently would be there exactly the same if we removed this generation of AI from the timeline, yes, and that lack of enforcement is the core issue, unrelated to issues with AI.

A business doesn't have any innate right to exist.

It would be an entirely different story if OpenAI was indeed open and the resulting model was available for all. The issue comes when taking information you haven't paid for, and then locking it into a machine you charge for.

Replace "AI" with any other tool or software in your scenario, and the outcome is the same. The same people and organizations are accountable, it's just that we currently live in a world without accountability in the highest places where it's most needed, and that's unrelated to AI.

You introduced a separate issue that is much more widespread, but that doesn't detract from the original criticism, nor dilute it.

We however don't want unnatural monopolies that have enough capital to swat away any competition, nor do we want natural monopolies taken over by rent-seekers.

I can highly recommend Ente Auth though.

Mostly just popularity trends, hoping that there's some wisdom in the crowd.