I first thought this was a bad idea by Paypal but you opened my eyes

My guy, you should stop feeding the troll. I can keep coming up with bullshit indefinitely. The intent of my original facetious reply was to point out how ridiculous it is to react to a clearly ridiculous and unrealistic suggestion as if it was the most seriously considered expression of an actual policy suggestion ever. But it turns out some people just can’t not take every single thing that is said with the utmost seriousness.

Of course a nuked country will be a nuked country. That’s beside the point, moving the goalposts.

That’s the point

No, they can return after the country has been glassed.

Yes, but in reality nobody is going to nuke anybody, and certainly not because a random internet user vents their frustration at the situation with a clearly metaphorical and exaggerated request. Your reply was an overly literal reading of the comment, like replying to “go fuck yourself” with “…you realize that’s not possible, right?”

I simply replied to your literal interpretation with a literal interpretation of my own.

Sure you can, move the civilians out first.

They didn’t say anything about civilians

I thought you were talking about “makaronivelli” before you specified the milk was for drinking.

So at best we don’t know whether or not AI CSAM without CSAM training data is possible. “This AI used CSAM training data” is not an answer to that question. It is even less of an answer to the question “Should AI generated CSAM be illegal?” Just like “elephants get killed for their ivory” is not an answer to “should pianos be illegal?”

If your argument is that yes, all AI CSAM should be illegal whether or not the training used real CSAM, then argue that point. Whether or not any specific AI used CSAM to train is an irrelevant non sequitur. A lot of what you’re doing now is replying to “pencils should not be illegal just because some people write bad stuff” with the equivalent of “this one guy did some bad stuff before writing it down”. That is completely unrelated to the argument being made.

So why are you posting all over this thread about how CSAM was included in the training set if that is in your opinion ultimately irrelevant with regards to the topic of the post and discussion, the morality of using AI to generate CSAM?

I know. So to confirm, you’re saying that you’re okay with AI generated CSAM as long as the training data for the model didn’t include any CSAM?

Chat is this real

Sounds to me it would be more like outlawing grand pianos because of all of the dead elephants - while some people are claiming that it is possible to make a grand piano without killing elephants.

Also Conquest of Paradise for me! I had the tune randomly pop up in my head for well over a decade, probably close to two, without having any idea what it was. Every few years I tried finding out what it was, but to no avail. Online melody searches weren’t that good, and when I hummed the melody to people or played it on the piano, people either had no clue or, at best, were like “that sounds familiar but I have no idea what it is”. I even toyed with the idea that I had come up with the melody myself, though I did find it unlikely.

I can’t describe the happiness I felt when I finally discovered the actual song when I once again tried finding it, this time by humming into Google’s music search thing

My main problem with STAR is that it seems to me like you should always give the highest available score to all candidates you don’t mind winning and give the other candidates a zero, because you know there are people giving the highest possible score to your dispreferred candidates and you want to offset their score total as much as possible.

So I feel like strategic voting would mostly trivialize STAR into a form of approval voting, which would still overly benefit the powers-that-be since most people would approve of the established candidates while fewer people would approve of the other candidates, who might be able to eke out a majority in ranked choice voting since they might be higher ranked than the established candidates.

But maybe I’m just not seeing the other strategic dimensions to giving the middle scores to some candidates.

Edit: The link by @themeatbridge is a very good explanation of the benefits of STAR over ranked choice voting! I for one am convinced.

Furthermore, it’s not that the original scientists failed to produce true-color images. The original published images of Neptune had deliberately enhanced colors to better show some of the features of the cloud surface, and the description text of the images said as much. But that nuance was quickly forgotten and everybody just took the deep blue coloring to reflect the actual color of the planet, which spread to depictions of the planet everywhere.

Coming from a country bordering Russia and having had to deal with their bullshit for my entire life, the most frustrating thing about Russian bullshit is that if they could just be normal, they could be an actually wealthy and significant European country in a few decades. But no, they have always had this HUGE inferiority complex, which means that they need to continuously prove that they’re great, powerful and important. And the only way they know how to prove their greatness and importance is to flex their “power” on their neighbors, including by militarily expanding their borders, while most of their “peer” countries (most importantly pretty much all of Europe) have moved on from this sort of view of being “powerful” after WW2 by the latest.

Nothing says “we’re on path towards inevitable victory” (as Russian shills like to claim) like nuclear saber rattling.

I mean.

One might be a coincidence.

Two out of two? Considering how few high profile whistleblowers there are, that is much more unlikely to be due to random chance, statistically speaking.

Similar to how it’s not impossible that someone might fall out of a window and die.

But if in a certain country, important people who have crossed the leadership keep falling out of windows, … well.