Why are we suffering fools steering us into the worst of all possible worlds? Are we hoping for some kind of integer overflow?

And when it's brought up where people do know, there's always these attempts at gatekeeping by speaking for the average user like a priest would speak for God.

The person who asked that cares, and didn't ask "the average, realistic user", because you can't ask an abstract concept questions.

That the laziest of us don't mind and the worst of us want something is not a respectable argument for anything, ever.

Such as? Name it. I'm really curious, since none of what you just wrote I didn't already know, and none of it is relevant to my comment. I don't even know what you're arguing against because you won't let on.

And what actual applications did you have in mind that warrant throwing everybody under the bus? (by that I mean some applications (allegedly) need it, so it gets forced on everyone)

What she did beforehand would only be relevant if it could somehow suspend those rights.

The argument for that being the case is that she doesn't say, therefore we can assume she did... something... that is sufficient to suspend her rights; without being able to name even an example.

You're kinda demonstrating it. I wasn't "bragging about being blocked", I said what I actually did say instead; but that's enough for you it seems. But even as you're doing it, I'm somehow a bad person for pointing out how lame it is. Nah.

It's just dismissing the question. If the AI changes, just use one that didn't change. If it gets 1000x more expensive, just use one that remains cheap.

Apart from the fact that without new input to learn from, things will probably stagnate in new exciting ways, on top of the stagnation, bloat and slop we worked so hard to make a culture over the last decades.

> Devs can continue wringing their hands over code quality and long term support and architecture and preferred framework

I mentioned none of those things.

> the user who had an itch got it scratched and didn't need nor care about any of those things.

And I don't care about that user when it comes to the question of my agency and autonomy. It's like people discussing how to make cats do tricks and someone going "just get a dog".

And before anyone mentions it, I don't think the fact that I need a compiler and a manual and some example software to learn from is quite on the same level. I might be wrong but I would need some convincing.

> The commander of the Einsatzkommando reported two days later:

> > The difficulties resulting from such a large scale action—in particular concerning the seizure—were overcome in Kiev by requesting the Jewish population through wall posters to move. Although only a participation of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 Jews had been expected at first, more than 30,000 Jews arrived who, until the very moment of their execution, still believed in their resettlement, thanks to an extremely clever organization.

"no prepared specialized infrastructure, just bussing them to a ravine and shooting them" ... yet "extremely clever organization", a special order posted 3 days prior, which the victims followed. How do you envision such a scenario playing out in Iran?

And why not simply show the evidence? Whoever makes the claim, unless they're lying, is basing the claim on something. So where is it?

Or it's something they know, namely there being nobody at the other end.

By your logic, a love letter you get from a real person and one that was generated would be the same thing, because "only the words should matter". To me it doesn't make sense to say that about music in precisely the same sense I assume you agree it wouldn't make sense about a love letter.

> Why do you suggest that people generating music aren't listening to it?

Because it's possible, and considering the vast amounts that get generated, a mathematical certainty that it does happen. Whereas people who compose music actually hearing what they compose, or if they're deaf, they experience it some other way. That is also a certainty.

Why this push to somehow "overcome" that? Why can't generated stuff be for people who like it, and the people who don't like it say that once, and that's the end of the discussion and simply gets respected as boundaries humans set for themselves?

No, I don't, which greatly goes together with that not following from anything I said. I simply care about humans that are not predators way more than predators.

It takes so much work, so much criminal energy, so much money and campaigns, to divide people. Whereas the opposite, people getting to know each other and working together, happens "by itself" all the time, for the most banal of reasons. Just give them some time and space together; no lobbying required, no bribes or blackmail, no psy-ops; just our innate desire to live and let live.

Humans who prey on humans are sick, it's as simple as that. Humans who don't want to stand up to humans who prey on humans may not be sick, but they're not our best, that's for sure, and they must not be our gatekeepers or our compass.