longtwerp

[longtwerp @longtwerp]

@UltraCDG Would be a real shame if your finger slipped and you accidentally hit the "Release demo" button early, wouldn't it?

[longtwerp @longtwerp]

@DestinLegarie Why not? Good animation in games is lovely.

[longtwerp @longtwerp]

@montesquieu_cl @eneri74362847 @cmuratori The comment you quoted referred to copies.

A work can also qualify as plagiarism if it's similar enough to another, yes. Both humans and AI are capable of producing such works. So if it wouldn't qualify when produced by a human, I don't know why it would when produced by an AI.

[longtwerp @longtwerp]

@cmuratori Except that's not the only criteria. To qualify as copyright infringement it also has to exceed some threshold of similarity to another work. So if an AI-generated work doesn't meet that threshold, it wouldn't qualify as copyright infringement regardless of it's economic impact.

[longtwerp @longtwerp]

@montesquieu_cl @eneri74362847 @cmuratori I literally referred to human made copies as copyright infringement.

[longtwerp @longtwerp]

@eneri74362847 @cmuratori A human is capable of producing copies that qualify as copyright infringement too. We don't then say everything that person produces is copyright infringement. So why would we for gen AIs?

[longtwerp @longtwerp]

@eneri74362847 @cmuratori So the argument hinges on whether or not a "copy" of the data is made in the process of training the model? Or are you saying the model itself is the copy?

If you mean the latter, I'm not sure why that qualifies as a copy but a human memory of the data doesn't.

[longtwerp @longtwerp]

@eneri74362847 @cmuratori To the extent that they were actually trained on pirated data, I'd agree. But if you're using "pirated" to refer to data that humans can already freely access legally, I don't agree.

[longtwerp @longtwerp]

@cmuratori Well I'd like to hear the argument *for* it being piracy first.

But the main question I imagine I'd have is, what is the difference between a human amalgamating reference into something new vs an AI doing the same, that qualifies the latter as piracy but the former not?

[longtwerp @longtwerp]

@hasanthehun Notice how you dodged answering his question?

[longtwerp @longtwerp]

@KyleKulinski I love how "fat" is supposedly so awful that it warrants being listed along with "rapist, pedophile, war criminal con man", and in fact before all of them.

[longtwerp @longtwerp]

@cdxliv444 Shame because she looked damn good with the weight 🤤

[longtwerp @longtwerp]

@timsoret Those numbers are hard to believe tbh. There's really a war the scale of the European theatre of WW2 going on right now?

[longtwerp @longtwerp]

@jonford01 @discordspies And ironically, it would be more unethical for him to not give her the option of paying with sex and mandate she only pays with money.

[longtwerp @longtwerp]

@jonford01 @discordspies The only difference would be if the landlord was like "pay me this instant (with money or sex) or I'll evict you".

But if he gives her the normal amount of time to find the money (or have sex with him), then she's in the exact position an escort is it.

[longtwerp @longtwerp]

@jonford01 @discordspies Except he's not saying he'll evict her if she doesn't have sex with him, he's saying he'll evict her if she doesn't pay rent (either with money or sex).

[longtwerp @longtwerp]

@discordspies Right but the gun to the woman's head in this scenario is the same gun to every escort's head (and anyone who pays rent). Assuming he's not refusing money as payment and just offering sex as an alternative, she could say no to him and just become an escort.

[longtwerp @longtwerp]

@discordspies So if he's not a "problem", then there's no difference?