When cops only legal responsibility is to enforce the law, and the laws are written to protect corporate interests, of course they will stand outside the school and arrest protesters. SCOTUS has ruled that way so many times that “to serve and protect” is literally gaslighting.

And here I thought the answer was to light rental properties on fire until it was too expensive to insure them and all of the landleeches ended up in squalor?

It really is unfortunate as it COULD be a really good feature if it were being implemented by someone who wasn’t just trying to crowdsource AI training data that will go into commercial products without compensation to anyone. It could be a great tool for professionals and experts to expand on what creators say, a way to call out falsehoods and Hypocrites, and a way to find your people in a world that is growing ever bleaker. But no, it is just being done to force more ads down our throats and harvest more money from us.

Not all heroes wear capes. Seriously, this man is now enshrined in my mental halls of great men along with John Bannister Goodenough, whom I just discovered died last year. I’m going to go be heartbroken now.

Just train a couple LoRAs and you can add in the vectors needed for doing whatever you want. “Circumventing” “safeguards” in this case means using a feature built into the system already. I have been making AI porn from the start. The day in installed their local framework for using it and got a Rick Astly image instead of anime tits I went and found their censorship function and neutered it. It is just python code, super easy to do.

My hot take, in the digital age, all direct marketing should be opt-in with the platform. Opt-in for industries with the ability to ban specific advertisers.

Yo ho ho my friend. Yo ho ho.

The example of stubbing ones toe is a strawman. It is levying a rhetorical argument which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is also hyperbolic and satirical.

Taken from excelsior.edu on the topic of sreawman arguments. Distort: equate it with a non-topical example.

Exaggerate: use hyperbole in the example to describe a link between stubbing one’s toe and deaths in car accidents.

Lack of engagement with my argument: there was no support for your assertion that the companies I mentioned do not engage in phone/textual communication when all of them work on the phone, are able to make voice calls, transmit text between phones, and are able to be set as the default SMS apps for a phone, which then subjects SMS communication to thier monitoring and filtering.

I know it subjects them to filtering as I once had Facebook Messenger set as my default SMS app and attempted to SMS a friend a porbhub link and FBM said that the message failed to send. Non-pornhub links worked just fine, but they filtered my porn message, and it was on SMS.

I know precisely what a strawman argument is. I made a good faith response, you did not.

The example of stubbing ones toe is a strawman. It is levying a rhetorical argument which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is also hyperbolic and sartorial.

Taken from excelsior.edu on the topic of sreawman arguments. Distort: equate it with a non-topical example.

Exaggerate: use hyperbole in the example to describe a link between stubbing one’s toe and deaths in car accidents.

Lack of engagement with my argument: there was no support for your assertion that the companies I mentioned do not engage in phone/textual communication when all of them work on the phone, are able to make voice calls, transmit text between phones, and are able to be set as the default SMS apps for a phone, which then subjects SMS communication to thier monitoring and filtering.

I know it subjects them to filtering as I once had Facebook Messenger set as my default SMS app and attempted to SMS a friend a porbhub link and FBM said that the message failed to send. Non-pornhub links worked just fine, but they filtered my porn message, and it was on SMS.

I know precisely what a strawman argument is. I made a good faith response, you did not.

That little “derivative works” bit in the middle gives them license to use the files stored in Creative Cloud to train AIs. So yes, they are using their data sets that they have license for. It just happens to be our data that they took the license on and we paid them to do it.

That’s fun, glad to see they are paying people now. I didn’t see in there when in the multi-years long process it takes to develop tool-sets and train checkpoints they paid for the rights to create derivative works. The article is dated a few days ago and it is present tense. They are NOW paying. The AI is trained. The tool is built. It takes tens of thousands of images to train a generative model from scratch, I would expect decades of footage for a video model. So if the model is trained, and them paying is new…?

Also, they don’t have to ask, or pay… They already have the rights for all content stored in Creative Cloud (EULA Link).

Legally, an AI training is a “derivative work”, so I would need a letter from the lead engineers on the AI dev team at Adobe, signed by every dev who has worked on it, stating that they only used paid training material at every stage of development of the tools, disseminated separately from any official Adobe channel before I would believe that the greedy gaping maw that is Adobe did not just use the millions of images and thousands of years of footage they have legal right to use that THEY are actually PAID for. They know they can pay now because it is a drop in the bucket compared to the Creative Cloud fees and is great PR and an even better smokescreen. There is precisely 0 chance they are going to receive enough good, usable footage through this program to train an AI from scratch.

Can we take a minute and stop to assess where Adobe is obtaining its training data? Everyone is all up in arms about the OpenAI devs scraping DA and such, but Adobe is 100% training on the entirety of Behance and the Adobe Cloud. Things that are not public, our personal files that we never intended others to be seen. Our private albums of our children, or our wives/husbands/partners, or parts of NDA restricted projects that are stored in Adobe Cloud automatically that are supposedly not in violation of our NDAs.

Where are the pitchforks? Where is the outrage? This is 1000x worse than some desperate AI engineer staring at a publicly visible and available training set that is already tagged and described in detail that was begging to be used. People lost their shit over that one. Why does Adobe get a pass?

Eh, its more of an oligopolistic cohort, but yeah. There is a strong argument to be made to classify all communication technology broadly as a utility under the telecom umbrella. That way it can cover all past and future technologies.

Yup, as I mentioned in my other response to Mr. Strawman that is the difference between a private corporation and a utility. Utilities ARE subject to the first and fourth amendment protections because they are a strange hybrid between public and private.

Way to strawman my man. SMS is not the only mode of communication and SMS and cell phone communication in general fall under a whole litiny of laws because they are considered a utility along with landlines. This extends the constitutional protections for the first and fourth ammendment protections to them. Your initial suggestion was a fallacious argument to start because utilities are not wholly private corporations, and thus do not qualify for the initial discussion. I tried to save it by suggesting that alternative means of communication which are utilized that serve the exact same purpose as SMS and telephone calls but are controlled wholly by private corporations DO fall victim to arbitrary censorship and it is allowed because they are not subject in their business dealings with consumers by any state or federal oversight.

Already happens. Facebook and other message systems have content filters built in to their chat systems.

As much as I am anti-censorship and hate all of this, there is no “Freedom of Speech” on social media platforms. They are private companies and are allowed to use any restrictions that do not fall into violations of the very few laws which restrict how companies can treat customers. In the USA, “Freedom of Speech” only guarantees that government agents and laws will not restrict it, and even that is not absolute.

Now the laws and policies about it need stripped along with all non-symmetric indecent exposure laws.

Photoshopping a dick onto Trump’s face is 100% protected expression. Producing a photoreal deepfake of him balls deep in Lindsey Graham’s ass while Mitch McConnell can be seen holding the camera in a mirror wearing a ballgag and cuck strap then posting it online either without context or trying to pass it off as real is a problem.

So what I’m hearing is that any cyber “vindication” should be targeted at the highest income communities in the states. Gotcha.