The difference is that a cars only purpose isn’t to kill or maim. There are very obvious positives to having widespread access to cars. I can point you countries where there is not widespread access to guns that do not have these problems. Can you point to any that have guns as accessible in the US that don’t?

Because I know your next argument will be about knives or cars again, let me address both of those: A knife is not nearly as deadly as a gun. You can at least run from a knife, its much more personal so less people are willing to use it, and you at least have a chance of fending off the attacker. Against a gun, your only hope is that they miss. And regarding cars, you’re right, they can be used as a weapon! Do you know what solves this issue while also still allowing people to commute? Public transport! Im glad we agree cars are an issue, and that public transport is needed.

Since you clearly don’t think everyone having grenades is ridiculous, how about rockets? Missiles? Should any citizen be able to obtain those too? Mustard gas? Nuclear weapons? How far are you willing to let that go before its obvious the cons outweigh the pros?

Nah, it doesn’t. If I advocate for the right for everyone to carry grenades on them, and then I get put in a position where someone actually has one and I get scared shitless and run away, thats funny, regardless of whether or not I carry a grenade myself. Its funny because we all can obviously see that the right to carry fucking grenades is ridiculous, and by advocating for it I kinda got whats coming to me.

In fact, the more I think about it, if you advocate for guns, why not also grenades? If you are citing the “well armed militia” part of the second amendment, well, you’re not going to ever be able to fight a tyrannical government with bullets alone will you? And if you’re worried about the self defense part, a grenade would let you take care of a shooter thats behind cover without putting yourself in the line of fire!

And if you think you shouldn’t be able to have a device that could kill a crowd of people in seconds, because thats obviously stupid and dangerous, I beg you to take another look at your stance on guns.

Because him not carrying at the time demonstrates why guns could never truly be a solution to these shootings. It can happen anytime, anywhere, and you can’t be prepared at every moment. You can’t live your life never letting your guard down.

Not to mention, if anyone should be carrying and take action in these situations, it should be the ones advocating against gun control. Missouri has some of the loosest gun control in the country. If the main argument against is the right to defend yourself, and when the time comes this guy is either not prepared or not willing to defend the people he is meant to serve, how can we expect others to?

Are we really to say “everyone should be carrying so they can defend themselves in these situations”, when the Missouri governor himself isn’t?

And when you advocate against gun control, that is the statement you’re making. That the issue of these shootings is simply solved by a good guy having a gun. If you’re saying “gun control isn’t alright because i deserve the right to defend myself”, you’re implying that everyone else has the same right, and their only chance to save themselves is to also exercise that right.

But can we expect women and children to do this? And I’m sure there are plenty of people of color who would not be super hyped to have a weapon on them during a police interaction. If the Missouri governor, one of the loudest voices against gun control can’t be expected to exercise this right, how can we expect everyone else?

Well good on you for getting through that situation, but you saying “oh, well maybe he just wasnt carrying” doesn’t really help your point. We can’t expect everyone to be carrying, at all times. And even if everyone could carry at all times, we still can’t expect everyone to be able to pull the trigger. You did, but that’s why people in your role are hailed as heroes for what they do: because most could not do it.

So your solution to the issue of mass shootings is that everyone should carry a gun on them at all times, and everyone should be ready to kill if necessary? And you don’t see the issue with that?

I’m not saying you specifically should not carry or be ready to defend yourself, and I would be a fool to pretend that you shouldn’t be willing and able to defend yourself, especially with how things are now. But do you really want to live in a world where every citizen has to be ready and willing to kill his fellow man at the drop of a hat when things go to shit? Do you want your kids, grandkids, etc. to live in a world like that?

The point isn’t that you shouldn’t be able to defend yourself. The point is that the fact that you need to is fucked up, and we shouldn’t accept it as the status quo.

I mean most pro-gun arguments boil down to “guns are needed because the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with one”, so when a large proponent of this argument is thrown into a situation where he could be the “good guy with a gun” and he instead runs away because he values his own life more than protecting the lives of those around him, maybe he should stop and dwell on that thought for a minute.

Would I charge headfirst into gunfire? Absolutely not, and thats why I advocate for more gun control.

Yeah man I know a lot of guys who drop money on shit like this. None of them are “whales”, but i know they’ve dropped hundreds if not thousands on this mtx bs. None of them own homes (which is kinda normal as we are in our 20’s), but only a few of them are even living on their own at all. Something is clearly going on psychologically there, if someone is willing to forego their own needs for cosmetics (that they will later replace with new cosmetics they bought!!)

Definitely including dupes, I got rid of tons of dupes from events but the spawn pool was so limited you were bound go get more. I was dedicated enough to grind out wild shinies, but if it was locked behind incubators or raids, forget about it.

Its a collectors game with nothing good to collect. This might seem like a silly take, and with 813 pokemon now in the game, it should be. But the way pokemon are laid out in this game is just horrendous.

In the main series games, you LOOK for pokemon. You might just wander around the grass for a while and take what you get, but at some point, you have a shopping list. In order to find specific pokemon, you go to a specific location. You find the pokemon you are looking for, often with others similar in type.

Well, in pokemon go, this isn’t the case at all. There are maybe 20-40 pokemon in the spawn pool at any given time. Go somewhere, ANYWHERE around you, and you are going to see more of the same. Once you have them, you wait for the next spawn rotation (sometimes thats 1 month, sometimes its 8) or events. The events are somewhere between 3 hours and 1 week long, and then you might actually have some cool shit, and the game is exciting for a bit. But after that, its back to the same old bullshit.

Now the game is just about collecting shinies. This is really what niantic has tried to monetize. The (often only) way to get them is to either hatch eggs (buying incubators) or doing raids (buying raid passes). The other way to get them is by doing certain events where they hand them out like candy. I stopped a couple years ago when i had well over 300 shinies, because there just wasn’t a point anymore. The whole “cool collectible” factor came from them being rare, if everyone gets them in events, why is it special?

I just hope the game is as serious and dark as it seems. I’m not into the comics but TMNT in media has always been such an upbeat franchise, I think a dark, gritty tone could be an incredible contrast.

I really hope this ends up as good as it sounds.

So now the output of both programs is “illegimate” in your eyes, despite one of them never even getting direct access to the original text.

Now lets say one of them just writes a story in the style of Twain, still plagiarism? Because I don’t know if you can copyright a style.

The first painter painted on cave walls with his fingers. Was the brush a parrot tool? A utility to plagiarize? You could use it for plagiarism, yes, and by your logic, it shouldn’t be used. And any work created using it is not “legitimate”.

Sure, AI is not doing anything creative, but neither is my pen, its the tool im using to be creative. Lets think about this more with some scenarios:

Lets say software developer “A” comes along, and they’re pretty fucking smart. They sit down, read through all of Mark Twains novels, and over the course of the next 5 years, create a piece of software that generates works in Twain’s style. Its so good that people begin using it to write real books. It doesn’t copy anything specifically from Twain, it just mimics his writing style.

We also have developer “B”. While Dev A is working on his project, Dev B is working on a very similar project, but with one difference: Dev B writes an LLM to read the books for him, and develop a writing style similar to Twain’s based off of that. The final product is more or less the same as Dev A’s product, but he saves himself the time of needing to read through every work on his own, he just reads a couple to get an idea of what the output might look like.

Is the work from Dev A’s software legitimate? Why or why not?

Is the work from Dev B’s software legitimate? Why or why not?

Assume both of these developers own copies of the works they used as training data, what is honestly the difference here? This is what I am struggling with so much.

Sure, but what I’m asking is: what do you think is a reasonable rate?

We are talking data sets that have millions of written works in them. If it costs hundreds or thousands per work, this venture almost doesn’t make sense anymore. If its $1 per work, or cents per work, then is it even worth it for each individual contributor to get $1 when it adds millions in operating costs?

In my opinion, this needs to be handled a lot more carefully than what is being proposed. We are potentially going to make AI datasets wayyyy too expensive for anyone to use aside from the largest companies in the market, and even then this will cause huge delays to that progress.

If AI is just blatantly copy and pasting what it read, then yes, I see that as a huge issue. But reading and learning from what it reads, no matter how rudimentary that “learning” may be, is much different than just copying works.

Okay, given that AI models need to look over hundreds of thousands if not millions of documents to get to a decent level of usefulness, how much should the author of each individual work get paid out?

Even if we say we are going to pay out a measly dollar for every work it looks over, you’re immediately talking millions of dollars in operating costs. Doesn’t this just box out anyone who can’t afford to spend tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars on AI development? Maybe good if you’ve always wanted big companies like Google and Microsoft to be the only ones able to develop these world-altering tools.

Another issue, who decides which works are more valuable, or how? Is a Shel Silverstein book worth less than a Mark Twain novel because it contains less words? If I self publish a book, is it worth as much as Mark Twains? Sure his is more popular but maybe mine is longer and contains more content, whats my payout in this scenario?

There is a c/linkedinlunatics@sh.itjust.works but its not very active… be the change you wish to see!

I can’t just go home and create an AI that can create art either, clearly i was simplifying things for my example.

Okay, I can understand that. But why is that being turned into “the creator of any work an AI looks at needs to be compensated” instead of holding AI companies accountable for plagiarized works?

I totally understand fining an AI company that produces a copy of Starry Night. But if it makes a painting similar in style to Starry Night that wouldn’t normally be considered a plagiarized work if a human did it, do we still consider that an issue?

I never understand this argument. If I go to an art museum, look at all the works, and create an art piece inspired by what i saw, no problem. If I go to an art museum, look at the works, and create a computer program that can create an art piece based on what I saw, that is somehow different? Because of the single step of abstraction that was taken by making some software to do it?

Hey man, Threads is that way if you want to use it, but I came here because I very specifically do not have any interest. You can sign up there, use it all you want! But don’t fuck the rest of us over because you want to use both platforms at the same time.

And by the way, your cloning analogy changes nothing. The original dog is not in the house, he’s fucking off somewhere else. The bear is actually here, trying to come in, and you’re proposing we use him to defend against a dog that may or may not return. Ill take my chances with the dog.