FaceDeer

I’m sure SpaceX would happily do a rescue mission on their own dime purely in exchange for the publicity they’d get for coming to Boeing’s rescue like that.

Their distribution of books is completely legal.

Corporations just have more money to warp the laws in their favour.

You just contradicted yourself in two sentences.

I only took issue with your regressive philosophy

The “regressive philosophy” you’re accusing me of holding is the opposite of what I said. There’s your misunderstanding to be corrected.

I don’t like the publishers, I think copyright has gone bananas with its various extensions over the years, I want to see them fought and defeated in court. The problem here is who is doing the fighting.

Imagine a scenario where there’s a ravenous man-eating bear in the woods. There’s two people available to fight it; a grizzled woodsman who makes it his entire business to go out and fight bears, and the village librarian who’s carrying around a backpack full of irreplaceable books. For some reason the librarian is out there poking the bear with a stick, and when the bear didn’t initially respond he started whacking it over the nose. Now the bear is chewing on the librarian’s leg and the librarian is crying out “oh no, my backback full of books is in danger!”

Well duh. You shouldn’t have been carrying that backpack into harm’s way like that. Nobody is in the least bit surprised that the bear attacked the librarian under those circumstances. I don’t have to be on the bear’s side to understand how this situation was going to go down and call the librarian an idiot for willingly getting into it.

The woodsman (the EFF) should have been the ones to take this fight. They’re better at it, it’s their job, and if they fail they don’t risk that precious backpack in the process. The librarian should have kept his books safely ensconced until the fight was over and it was safe for him to bring them out. If he really wanted those books distributed in the meantime, there are some sites who are already out there running around under the bear’s nose taking that risk for their own reasons; let them continue taking those risks for now. The IA’s job is to protect the archive.

Well then, guess they’ll die.

You somehow overlooked the second paragraph in my comment. I explicitly said the opposite of that.

Also Library Genesis.

The IA is appealing the decision so they’re not out of the woods just yet.

The Wikipedia article explains and has sources.

It’s an asshole perspective that the IA dearly needs to listen to. Don’t poke a bear when you have so much to lose. Doesn’t matter if you’re “in the right”. The history books are littered with the corpses of righteous people.

Let the EFF handle the quixotic battles, it’s what they’re best at.

But I think the law is pretty clear, and a precedent calling their use case fair use would be mind blowing. You need new, much more common sense IP legislation that redefines consumer rights in a digital world.

Indeed. I’m a big supporter of IA’s mission, and I’m a big supporter of piracy (copyright has gone insane over the years), but this outcome was obvious from the moment IA did this and it was a mistake for them to fight this fight. They should focus on preservation. Let the EFF handle the lawsuits, and let Library Genesis handle the illegal distribution of books. Everyone focus on what they’re best at.

They’re appealing the decision so there’s still opportunity for IA to throw good money after bad on this.

“We’ll move forward a bit and get you out.”

You could also fall back, live, and the Ukrainians will return your dead to you.

Unless it’s one of those monkey’s-paw wishes, in which case everyone immediately dies.

Or we need to try to accommodate the needs that people actually have rather than telling them they should change what they need. That’s somewhat more likely to actually work.

And if you need examples of people being piledriven, you can browse my history a bit. :) Since I’m not doing anything with AI that would suffer “professionally” from backlash (such as might happen to an artist who becomes the target of anti-AI witch-hunters) I’ve not been shy about talking about the good things AI can do and how I use it. Or at calling out biased or inaccurate arguments against various AI applications. As a result I get a lot of downvotes.

Fundamentally, I think it’s just that people are afraid. They’re seeing a big risk from this new technology of losing their jobs, their lifestyles, and control over their lives. And that’s a real concern that should be treated seriously, IMO. But fear is not a good cultivator of rational thought or honest discourse. It’s not helping people work towards solving those real concerns.

What better way to get facial recognition data for all Muslims than with something like the Hajj.

Surely they could just relocate the Kaaba to a more hospitable location. It’s not a large structure, should be easy to dig up and move.

Might have to update a few direction markers for Salah, though. That could be a bit of work.

There’s a very significant open-source AI industry, too. Krita’s got a great Stable Diffusion plugin that lets you generate and inpaint right in the editor, using entirely local models.

Also, a lot of people who are using AI have become quiet about it of late exactly because of reactions like this article’s. Okay, you’ll “piledrive” me if I mention AI? So I won’t mention AI. I’ll just carry on using it to make whatever I’m making without telling you.

There’s some great stuff out there, but of course people aren’t going to hear about it broadly if every time it gets mentioned it gets “piledriven.”

It echoes the chamber’s preferred echo.