[-] InternetPerson 3 points 1 month ago

zu lang, nicht gelesen.

"Nachdem ich meinen Frust über dieses Maimai rausgelassen habe, welches übermenschliche Daumenmuskeln abverlangt, scrollte ich für einige Stunden beim Kacken weiter durch's Fediversum."

KI-Schrott

Kann ich nicht nachvollziehen. Sieht für mich ganz jut aus.

[-] InternetPerson 4 points 5 months ago

Ja, sogar auf mehreren Instanzen. Das ist aber auch das Problem. Zersplitterung, statt ein einzelnes Zuhause dafür zu haben. :'(

[-] InternetPerson 3 points 5 months ago

where people with conservative-minded views act like words were discovered in a fucking meteor crater

Hahaha, I love that part. :D

[-] InternetPerson 4 points 6 months ago

Or are they local?

[-] InternetPerson 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

There is just that teeny tiny ethical problem of not paying the creators and distributors for something we enjoy. This becomes a practical problem as well. If they make less money, it's likely that even more movies or series get killed or never even started.

Idk what to do.

[-] InternetPerson 5 points 6 months ago

Stack Overflow, technically a neutral term. Idk though whether the name in such a context would violate any trademark laws even if it's a non-profit platform.

Snack Overflow

Nullpointer Exception

Access Violation

[-] InternetPerson 3 points 6 months ago

Hell, it even goes for people. Leave them a little happier, a little wiser, a little more prosperous than before.

I like that. Thank you. I'll try.

[-] InternetPerson 3 points 6 months ago

That's why we need strong legislation. Most countries wordlwide are missing crucial time frames for making such laws. At least some are catching up, like the EU did recently with their first AI act.

[-] InternetPerson 3 points 6 months ago

It is necessary to employ a method which enables the training procedure to distinguish copyrighted material. In the "dumbest" case, some humans will have to label it.

Just because you've edited a comment, doesn't mean that this can be seen as "oh, this is under copyright now".

I don't say it's technical impossible. To the contrary, it very much is possible. It's just more work. This drives the development costs up and can give some form of satisfaction to angered ex-reddit users like me. However, those costs will be peanuts for giants like Google / Alphabet.

[-] InternetPerson 3 points 7 months ago

Because it's "not official" and is therefore seen as a security risk.

[-] InternetPerson 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

If a corporation willingly abuses every loophole in laws or lack of laws even though it is able to know what would be more beneficial for their customers or humanity or at least to know what the law originally intended, then it's just plain evil shit. It's still people who work at companies and make immoral decisions. They have the power to decide.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

InternetPerson

joined 7 months ago