The regulations impose additional requirements for a reason - because political advertising can be extremely dangerous. If it’s a question of no political advertising or opaque, microtargeted political advertising that can’t be investigated later, then it’s an easy choice.

They don’t need it so I don’t provide it, that’s my primary reason and that should be enough.

It is enough. In fact, it’s better than the “you should trust your SO” argument which doesn’t make any sense.

I didn’t say it’s something you need. Read the rest of my comment.

If you just see this and, like 20 others, blindly say “you should trust your partner” then you haven’t thought about it at all. If you trust your partner completely, then you trust them to use your location information responsibly, right? So trust does not have any bearing on whether to use it or not.

The issue for me is that we should try to avoid normalising behaviour which enables coercive control in relationships, even if it is practical. That means that even if you trust your partner not to spy on your every move and use the information against you, you shouldn’t enable it because it makes it harder for everyone who can’t trust their partner to that extent to justify not using it.

On a more practical level, controlling behaviour doesn’t always manifest straight away. What’s safe now may not be safe in two years, and if it does start ramping up later, it may be much, much harder to back out of agreements made today which end up impacting your safety.

With a manifesto commitment to do it, he probably will, but the question is when. In concert with other countries might be (have been) the best way to do it.

This is a very strict world view you have.

“Can be, but typically isn’t” isn’t strict in any sense. It’s the opposite of strict, by admitting more than one possibility. We’re still no closer to understanding what it is you think constitutes art, so we can’t have a proper discussion about how, if at all, non-AI generated art fails to be art in that sense, and whether that’s important.

Asking people what they mean by the words the say - especially when it’s a word like art which is literally memed on for being the source of endless debates regarding its nature and definition - is not some kind of juvenile trap; it’s a pre-requisite for having a productive conversation on the subject.

I will note, this is not an argument in favor of AI. This is just clinical “given up” disease. I think they call that cynicism.

The argument in favour is that people want to do it, so just let them get on with it. Simple.

Why can’t porn be art? You say “typically,” but what are your feelings?

Porn can be art, but typically it isn’t, and typically when it is it’s called “erotica” or “erotic art”. There’s a distinction you apparently don’t want to talk about, even though you started trying to make an argument about what constituted art.

Weird that you started off saying “you must understand what art is” but now are reluctant to talk about it, even though your conception of it obviously differs greatly from mainstream definitions.

Here’s what I think. I think the vast majority of visual content we interact with is pretty emotionally empty. It’s product packaging, advertising, memes, yes even superhero cinematic universe shlock written to a formula. I think using AI in that area cheats no-one out of anything, and I think that people will always find an artistic outlet for their emotions if that’s what they want. My partner paints as a hobby and I haven’t heard them saying they’re not going to bother because of AI.

Do you mean to imply that if someone took a photograph and pretended to have painted it, that this wouldn’t piss a lot of people off? I think it would.

Is your problem AI art or is it lying about art?

I might. I dunno.

Wow, you’ve really thought hard about this.

End-to-end ML can be much better than hybrid (or fully rules-based) systems. But there’s no guarantee and you have to actually measure the difference to be sure.

For safety-critical systems, I would also not want to commit fully to an e2e system because the worse explainability means it’s much harder to be confident that there is no strange failure mode that you haven’t spotted but may be, or may become, unacceptable common. In that case, you would want to be able to revert to a rules-based fallaback that may once have looked worse-performing but which has turned out to be better. That means that you can’t just delete and stop maintaining that rules-based code if you have any type of long-term thinking. Hmm.

Yeah, that’s a good point. I guess in light of that what I would say is that, if you are going to have a state-run payment processor, you need to build in a) pluralism (enable and encourage multiple processors) and b) legal protections (legally guarantee that the payment processor has a limited remit in terms of allowing all payments unless instructed to block them by a court order) which would help mitigate or slow down anti-democratic backsliding.

That and (at least for now) it may be difficult to communicate contextual information to an LLM that a human historian or philologist may be able to take in implicitly.

Why would a campaign group have any influence over that?

It’s a good point, but a payment processor run by the government would also be under pressure (from voters) to wield its power to suppress marginal content.

Imagine a US-government-run payment processor right now - it would be blocking anyone that sells anything “woke” or “DEI”.

My opposition is to demon tech produced by vampires.

I’m not going to take you seriously if you don’t discuss this seriously.

Yes. Why would you even ask me this.

Depraved tentacle porn is art. —Why are you trying to like debate trick me into recoiling in disgust at what some people spend their time on?

Because you’ve made a distinction between art and visual media that isn’t art without clarifying it at all - and that’s still the case. Typically pornography is not classified as art. Both these cases describe visual content made (often) not as an emotional expression of the creator, but as a means of making money or sexual gratification. I’m not saying either is evil or disgusting (you’re the one who contends that visual media made without emotion is morally deficient).

I await your clarification on what art is and whether AI images are still immoral if they only displace stuff produced for some other reason than emotional expression.

there is hardly confusion about whether something is or is not a photograph.

There certainly can be - check out people producing photorealistic art today, or the extremely realistic portraits produced before the advent of photography. Photography can be used in the process without being evident in the final image, too.

The fact is that most AI images today can be detected as such by anyone familiar with them. That may not be true forever, and the signs can be covered up by someone with the will, but then, that’s the same as use of photography.

I can’t appreciate someone’s brush strokes if there is no way of knowing a brush was struck.

When I look at brush strokes I’m appreciating it visually because they look nice. If you view two pieces of art on a computer screen (so that you can’t see the 3D aspect) do you respond differently to the brush strokes because one is a photo of an actual oil painting, whereas the other is a piece of digital art made in Krita where the brush strokes are simulated?

Loads of people gave a shit.

Doesn’t mean loads of people bought into him being a paedo.

It’s like the pee tape. There’s not actual evidence for it, but people will buy into something like that regardless. Some tongue-in-cheek (because unlike CSA, it’s funny) but some seriously, and the tongue-in-cheek repetition of it also keeps it in people’s minds until some of them forget that there was never anything substantive.

There’s never anything wrong with repeating the scummy things Trump has said, but condensing it into “Trump is a paedo” is drivel.

I’m pretty confident that if there were actual evidence kicking around, either the article or someone in this thread would actually have brought it up.

The most complicated comfyUI-whatever is worth less to me than a child’s drawing of their parents because the child’s drawing is communicating love while the generated one is communicating nothing.

So, not all art is communicating heartfelt emotion. Is your opposition limited to the encroachment of AI into the space of emotionally communicative art?

What if someone is making art (or maybe you want to use another word) purely for money? Or depraved tentacle porn? If someone is just trying to create a funny comic, is that necessarily art or might it just be a means to the end of getting people to laugh?

You must stop selfishly invading the space other artists inhabit: photography was a paradigm shift, yeah, but it still left room for painters to do their own thing. In the modern day, there is hardly confusion about whether something is or is not a photograph.

Photography completely displaced the segment of visual art whose primary goal was to accurately (what we might now call “photorealistically”) reproduce what could be seen, because it was a better tool for that goal. If you pay a painter for a portrait today, it’s because you want to see the brush-strokes, not because you want the most accurate rendition of your face possible.

I don’t think the displacement of the former kind of portrait painter by photographers is in any way a problem with photography. It was a problem for portrait painters, so I can understand the distress of people who are producing art at risk of being displaced by AI.

So how is it that use of AI is “selfishly invading” but photography was not?

I actually have zero need to be informed about the bad behaviour of a foreign head of state, but I think what you’re reading as “poorly informed” is rather “sticking to facts” rather than believing any old shite because it suits my opinions.

Ew

It’s wild that, despite not having any evidence to supprt your theory, you’re still trying to “both sides” this one.

It’s wild that people think that writing a lewd note to a paedophile makes you a paedophile. This is not a discussion where people are going off evidence.

Because people are mostly incapable of using the button as anything other than “I like this” or “I don’t like this”.