greenskye

And you can absolutely trust that tons of executives will definitely not understand this distinction and will use AI even in areas where it's actively harmful.

Agreed. I keep waffling on my feelings about it. It definitely doesn't feel like our laws properly handle the scale that LLMs can take advantage of 'fair use'. It also feels like yet another way to centralize and consolidate wealth, this time not money, but rather art and literary wealth in the hands of a few.

I already see artists that used to get commissions now replaced by endless AI pictures generated via a Lora specifically aping their style. If it was a human copying you, they'd still be limited by the amount they could produce. But an AI can spit out millions of images all in the style you perfected. Which feels wrong.

Google says no, you don't need one.

Also no golden parachute to pay out

It's weird how they can take the long view on some things and yet they will happily run a company into the ground for a 1% higher quarterly return.

Feasible for a non-profit however

How does an aromantic even get to the point of being pressured into a marriage (at least in a society without arranged marriage)? Why are they dating in the first place? Am I misunderstanding how that works?

Or the beginner gear makes the hobby super tedious and difficult. Who knows if you would've liked it with proper tools instead of trying to make it work with a shitty, poorly working set up.

You act like these companies don't already have your identity anyway. Google, Apple, Microsoft. They know exactly who you are. The idea is that those mega corps who already handle identity information are in a better position to be a 3rd party witness to other, less trustworthy websites to say 'yes this person is an adult'. So you don't have to give that random website any personal info.

I'd have suggested the government fulfill this role, but people would freak out way more about that.

At the end of the day, ensuring someone else’s kids don’t have access to something said parent doesn’t want them to access…? Not my problem,

It's absolutely affecting you though. Basically every where online is now 'family friendly' because it's impossible to create adult spaces online. You can't keep the kids out no matter what you do. And that's bringing everything down to the lowest common denominator and trying to cram the entire gamut of human interactions down into a single, heavily censored experience. It's why censorship has gotten completely out of control. Something needs to change or we'll app be stuck with PG spaces for 10 year olds forever.

Not the environment, the parks. I get those are basically the same thing to us, but not to them.

Which is also a problem because we can't have adult spaces either. Every time someone tries, they get shut down or all attempts to keep kids out are fruitless. At this point I think everyone would benefit from robust ways of enforcing age limits online.

Personally I think this needs to be at the device level. You can register a device as: child, teen, adult. Every website can query the device age group. The device age is set by a process that verifies ID through a trusted party. Only that party knows your identity, everyone else simply knows your age group. Child and teen devices would be tied to an adult account and only they could override or update the classification (or a valid adult ID works too).

Then it would put liability on the parent for allowing their kids access to adult content. Websites not checking for this info that abuse it can be shut down.

Both sides are twisting words. Pirating truly isn't stealing, but rather closer to unauthorized use. The word 'steal' is used because they want to imply that it's the same thing as taking a physical thing that can be lost. It engenders a certain feeling that they're wanting to invoke. Stealing sounds worse than unauthorized use. Doesn't mean it's not wrong to do, but it isn't the sort of wrong that they're implying.