arch-user

boykisser as profile pic

completely cis dude

Both, I think. The fact that you’re here on lemmy tells me that you probably care about how shit works, which makes you an outlier, and it’s likely others who are stupid relative to you. On the other hand, you’re probably a dumbass who talks with people like peers and doesn’t know how to communicate with stupid people, or how to manage your expectations as stupid people will always misunderstand things no matter how good your communication skills are.

I’d say the HP is at least on par with them. They’re software locking which RAM or WiFi modules you can use in their laptops and theyuse as much proprietary components as possible in their desktops and servers, just because they can. And that’s not even talking about printers…

4th place I think would go to LG, but thankfully they’re not big enough to be noticeable

Both aren’t really sustainable. Open source doesn’t pay live-able wages without some kind of proprietary component and going full vegan is very detrimental to the health and sometimes even the cause itself. I’m not a dictionary and english isn’t my first language, but in my understanding, the “right” thing should at least be viable, without taking compromises from the other side.

To clarify, I’m not saying that open-source and veganism are bad or we shouldn’t aim towards those. What I’m saying is that, while half-opensource like redhat and half-veganism (on supplements) is viable, so is all-meat diet and all-proprietary software, but not going full RMS opensource-only and getting rid of all animal-based products without causing even more damage to the ecosystem with the alternatives. Maybe we’re missing some puzzle pieces (like properly implemented communism) or the end-goal is a bit off, or, maybe, going half-way is actually the “right” thing all along.

Eh… both are questionable. Morally superior, maybe, but definitely not right.

you’ll have a hard time finding owners who disliked it

Well hello there. It’s been more than 20 years, but I remember the keyboard on that thing being complete garbage. It was mushy, yet knee-dialing all the time with no automatic locking. And keyboard lock was some stupid unwieldy two-hand combination. The UI was extremely clunky too with only one button and two arrows pointing who knows where, and those arrows keys tended to get sticky over time. Also it was overly heavy and bulky, with a terribly attached back cover giving it a false sense of robustness - it shattered in pieces just like any other phone of that era. I think it was rather power hungry, too, I’m not sure, but I definitely did change the battery a couple of times. Overall, though, not a terrible phone by any means, but it was neither the most advanced nor the cheapest option, just the most widely marketed one right around the time when mobile phones started booming and ended up as a lot of people’s first one.

The average user does not use a variety of apps either. All they need is a browser, a rich text editor, a simple image editor, a video player and maybe a messenger. All but the browser can be effectively substituted by web apps nowadays, so the browser is pretty much the only thing they really need. But then, they’re better off with a chromebook, as it doesn’t offer as much options to brick itself.

You show it a piece of art with a whole lot of tags attached. It then semi-randomly changes pixel colors until it matches the training image. That set of instructions is associated with the tags, and the two are combined into a series of tiny weights that the randomizer uses. Anyways, the end result is that AI isn’t photo-bashing, it’s more like concept-bashing

That’s what I’ve meant by “very finely shredded pieces”. Ioversimplifed it, yes. But what I mean is that it’s not literally taking a pixel off an image and putting it into output. But that using the original image in any way is just copying with extra steps.

Say, we forego AI entirely and talk real world copyright. If I were to record a movie theater screen with a camcorder, I would commit copyright infringement, even though it’s transformed by my camera lens. Same as If I were to distribute the copyrighted work in a ZIP file, invert colors, or trace every frame and paint it with watercolors.

What if I was to distribute the work’s name alongside it’s SHA-1 hash? You might argue that such transformation destroys the original work and can no longer be used to retrieve the original and therefore should be legal. But, if that was the case, torrent site owners could sleep peacefully knowing that they are safe from prosecution. Real world has shown that it’s not the case.

Now, what if we take some hashing function and brute force the seed until we get one which outputs the SHA-1’s of certain works given their names. That’d be a terrible version of AI, acting exactly like an over-trained model would: spouting random numbers except for works it was “trained” upon. Is distributing such seed/weight a copyright violation? I’d argue that’d be an overly complicated way to conceal piracy, but yes, it would be. Because those seeds/weights are are still a based on the original works, even if not strictly a direct result of their transformation.

Anyways, the end result is that AI isn’t photo-bashing, it’s more like concept-bashing

Copying concepts is also a copyright infringement, though

Regardless, lots of people find that training generative AI using a mass of otherwise copyrighted data (images, fan fiction, news articles, ebooks, what have you) without prior consent just really icky.

It shouldn’t be just “icky”, it should be illegal and be prosecuted ASAP. The longer it goes on like this, the more the entire internet is going to be filled with those kind-of-copyrighted things, and eventually turn into a lawsuit shitstorm.

I don’t buy the pencil comparison. If I have a painting in my basement that has a distinctive style, but has never been digitized and trained upon, I’d wager you wouldn’t be able to recreate neither that image nor it’s style. What gives? Because AI is not a pencil but more like a data mixer you throw complete works in into and it spews out colllages. Maybe collages of very finely shredded pieces, to the point you could even tell, but pieces of original works nontheless. If you put any non-free works in it, they definitely contaminate the output, and so the act of putting them in in the first place should be a copyright violation in itself. The same as if I were to show you the image in question and you decided to recreate it, I can sue you and I will win.

baby boomers definitely had it better than us

Dunno, man. Boomers in my home country went through such shit time that they think that becoming literal nazis still isn’t the worst thing to happen in their lifetime. They did get free housing before that, though, so I’m not sure they actually had it worse overall…

Well, at least you’ve got a heads-up and some choice on how fast you get screwed.

We just got a guy we didnt choose who just suddenly and royally f🇷🇺ks everyone over every few years or so