Copyright is far too long and should only last at most 20 years.
Actually, George Washington would agree with me if he was still alive. He and the other founding fathers created the notion of copyright, which was to last 14 years. Then big corporations changed the laws in their favor.
Hot extreme opinion: copyright shouldn’t exist, and authors should be covered by other means, particularly public funding based on usage numbers and donations.
The world got essentially all classical music, the painting on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, etc. without the need for copyright. Shakespeare’s work wasn’t protected by copyrights either. So, it’s not like amazing works of art require copyright. They’ll happen regardless. It’s more about how artists are incentivized to create and who profits.
health insurance != healthcare
health insurance profits only exist at the expense of human suffering.
but lets make sure everyone has insurance but not care
I thought this thread was for hot takes 😉
Is this your first time in an “unpopular opinion” thread? lol
Myers Briggs is posh astrology.
I used to think this, but I think the new posh astrology is mental disorders in general. It costs thousands of dollars to get professionally assessed, whereas MBTI is a free quiz online. Crippling anxiety, depression, OCD, panic attacks, etc., are the new ENFP
Things that are scientifically provable are valid.
So you don’t think a rich person can use their money to shop around for sketchy psychologists? You don’t think it’s possible that Munchausen syndrome (something science has proved exists) could be becoming more common? Why did you even state things that are scientifically provable are valid? Duh. Things that aren’t scientifically disproven are also invalid, in case anyone else wanted another useless reminder to up vote.
You seem very upset about this. I doubt this will help since it doesn’t seem like your reasoning is influenced by logic, but, the fact that there are fraudulent doctors and diagnoses doesn’t mean science isn’t real.
Jesus this is a bad take
People are crazy when they promote closed-source AI (okay, okay, generative model) projects like ChatGPT, Bard etc.
This is literally one of the most important technologies of the future, and after all the times technology companies screwed them (us) up big time and monopolized the Internet, they go into the same trap again and again.
First they surrendered the free Internet, now they surrender the new frontiers.
Wake up, people. Go HuggingFace, advocate for free AI, and ideally - for a GPL one. We cannot afford for this part of our future to be taken away from us.
I pointedly avoid ChatGPT for that reason. When the NovelAI leak happened, it was amazing, and the open ecosystem flourished in response. I just can’t believe they call themselves OpenAi.
Ah, that name was left from when they’ve been open-source, which us why I advocate for the emergence of GPL-licensed projects.
The open-source license for GPT model was very relaxed, which OpenAI took advantage of and, once it could afford their own programmer staff, closed the code with all the contributions all the programmers from all over the world have made.
It’s an extremely dick move, and it was repeated by Google, too.
I don’t use the current AI, specifically because it isn’t open source. Could I audit the code of an open source AI? Certainly not; it’s way over my head. However there would be an opportunity for experts to examine the source and report their findings. Currently? Black box, so no thanks.
There are so many projects that could become possible through novel use of an open source AI (or whatever it should actually be called).
Judging by the seemingly exponential improvements and integration, opinions such as ours are a grain of sand in Death Valley.
To be completely fair, even open-source AIs are a little bit of a black box due to the way neural networks work - but I’d greatly appreciate if we at least knew the parameters on which it is trained.
It is absolutely possible to train all sorts of biases in a closed-source AI, and that’s what would be very hard in an open-source model. You can roughly set up outputs at whatever. In other ways, using open-source practically removes the malicious human factor (without removing positive impact)
Open-source models also can’t be restricted, paywalled or limited in any meaningful way, which is also vital.
What open-source AI projects are worth checking out?
For text, I’d go with HuggingChat based on open-source Llama model. Previously there was Open Assistant, but it got closed. For pictures, renowned Stable Diffusion is the way to go. For music - Stable Audio, respectively.
Please note that none of them are GPL-licensed, so while they are open-source, they can sadly get commercialized in some form in the future. Also, while models are free, in order to meaningfully use them you have to either go through their service (which may annoy with registration, or even take payment for premium features), or train the model yourself (which is unrealistic for a home user). So this is still far from perfect, but it’s miles ahead of trash options from the original comment.
Religions are mostly just popularized conspiracy theories. Believing in God is about as realistic as believing the world is flat.
But it’s not about that for many people. For many people, being religious is more about finding strength and peace in that kind of guided spirituality
And explaining what happens when you die. Which by its very definition nobody alive can know
The same thing can be said about most conspiracy theories. People want to believe in aliens because then we aren’t alone and they feel more comfortable, for example. The biggest issue I have is it leads them to do things that are un-helpful for the rest of humanity.
But c’mon… There ARE aliens. Just maybe not here necessarily. But somewhere, there are 100% aliens.
Probably true, but we all know what we’re talking about here…
False peace through a false god
Believe is a powerful thing I would ague even if what you belief is wrong if that belief brings you peace it is not a false peace.
Believing in God is about as realistic as believing the world is flat.
That is a bad comparison IMO. We have piles and piles of hard evidence the Earth is round. Saying the Earth is flat is just factually incorrect at this point.
But the existence of God. I would argue we have no hard evidence of God’s existence nor do we have hard evidence that God doesn’t exist. As far as science is concerned it is still a theory.
On top of that what makes a god a God there are multiple definitions of a God. If simulation theory is correct and we are all just in a simulation would be people outside of the simulation be our Gods? Or if an extremely advanced civilization existed would they be Gods to us? Or If we as humans advanced enough could we become Gods our self.
I agree with the first sentence, seriously disagree with the second. The shape of the Earth is a testable hypothesis, we have the technology to just go look.
As you go down the rabbit hole of consciousness and existence itself, with a purely rational and materialist mindset, the most reasonable and conservative hypotheses approach the descriptions of deity. Certainly the more specific claims of various religions are as you described, conspiracy theories, but the entire concept? Wholesale dismissal of the generalized God hypothesis strikes me as evidence of rationality applied incompletely, arbitrarily cut short.
Here’s one of them there conspiracy theorists I was talking about.
What a superb example of hypocrisy. Bro agrees with you, explains, however, that scientifically speaking your analogy is incorrect, and then you proceed to go against precisely the science you were idolizing earlier.
I am an atheist. My mother is Catholic. She is Catholic, because sometimes she needs mental comfort. Religion can be very therapeutic, a community and someone/-thing to prey to are things that comfort most humans. Note, my mother does not believe what it says in the Bible word-for-word, she believes in metaphors. Don’t be a jack-ass to these people, they have not harmed you. Be a jack-ass to the people who start spouting entitled crap and try to murder people.
His believe that science points towards a diety is of conspiracy level bullshit to me sure maybe there is some chance but its not overwhelmingly true. If there is a god it likely does not follow the fables written in any religious text.
It’s an opinion he has based on no or misguided facts just like many conspiracy theories. Yes there is a key difference in that you can disprove that the earth is flat but there are other conspiracies that are not easily disproven similar to how it’s hard to disprove the existence of a god, I put them into the same box, they and I am assuming you don’t put them in the same box. Sure I could have probably made a larger explanation but I was probably busy in the moment or otherwise didn’t feel like it.
Conscience is not limited to Humans, Humans are not special. Why would that ever point to there being a god?
Here’s one of those who arbitrarily stops using rationality I was talking about. What is consciousness made of?
Nuerons, and the small electrical signals that pass between them. Also religion and there being a god are two different things. The Bible can be easily disproven just like flat earth.
Notice the top comment compared belief in god specifically to flat earth theory, hence the structure of my response.
As to your hypothesis, I didn’t ask about brain activity, I asked about consciousness itself, the subjective experience. It’s still very much an open question.
Oh yeah I forgot the good old adage that everything that can’t be clearly explained must be a God’s work.
Pitbulls are not more genetically predisposed towards biting or mauling than other breeds and the supposed “statistical data” on the subject is based around a confluence of inaccurate metrics caused by 1) people not being very good at accurately identifying dog breeds, 2) existing groups that hate pitbulls pushing bad statistics for political purposes, and 3) a self-fulfilling prophecy of pitbulls having a bad reputation and actively being sought out by people who want vicious dogs and who will treat their dogs in such a way as to encourage that behavior. And I say all of this as someone who does not own a pitbull and probably never will.
Mate, have you seen the statistics?
https://topdogtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/US-Statistics-on-Dog-Bites_2-scaled.jpg
You’re saying that in 90% of cases the wrong dog breed was identified?
Pit bulls aren’t genetically predisposed to attacking things, but when they do attack things, they’re genetically predisposed to doing a lot more damage than most other breeds. Gameness is a thing.
Omg thank you! The old place, you would’ve been downvoted 200 times and gotten death threats for saying this.
I did say this in the old place and people got PISSED.
I’ll bet they accused you of being an irresponsible pitbull owner and mockingly said some shit like “oh my little sweetie wouldn’t hurt a fly!”
Indeed they did.
Me too. Every. Fucking. Time.
The problem is that terriers are very susceptible to Kushings disease, which can lead to very irratic behavior. That’s manageable when it’s a 20lb Boston Terrier, but horrifying when it’s a 60 lb terrier of any type.
The meanest, most dangerous dog I knew was an american eskimo owned by my ex wife. This was a 20 pound fluffball, and he looked like he would be friendly and fun to scratch behind the ears.
He loved to bite people, especially children. He had a specific thing he would do when someone looked at him: he would look up and smile, while vigorously wagging his poofy tail. You’d reach down to pet that brilliant white, angel-soft fur, and as soon as you were close enough, he would take a chunk out of your hand or arm. This wasn’t a playful bite, he would bite down hard and hang on.
I know a lot of it is from what people did. When I was a kid in the late 80s/early 90s, we lived in a town which had many illegal dog fighters in it. They mostly chose pitbulls but not solely. We ended up saving one puppy from them and he was some sort of mastiff mix.
One of their pitbulls escaped once. I opened my door and it came running from out of nowhere, snatched my cat from beside me and shook her to death in front of me. It was so terrible.
They would do the worst things to these dogs. They would beat them, use food against them and for a long time it was even really popular to feed them gun powder to make them more aggressive. They would condition their dogs in any way they could to make them good fighters and as aggressive as possible.
Pitbulls have a lot of sharp teeth and sturdy, muscular bodies, so they never had a chance with these assholes.
The dog breed I’ve personally seen get out of line as a pet and bite people the most is the German Shepard. That’s just my experience. Either way I believe that dogs are like people. They can have genetic tendencies but their environment will have the largest influence on them most of the time. I’ve never met an aggressive pitbull outside of those terrible dog fighter’s dogs.
On a tangent, I’ve seen many pitbulls breathing heavily. Is this normal for these dogs? Are other dogs races like this?
What? Ours does snore. I never related it to her phenotype (she is a mutt but very pit looking). I agree she doesn’t seem bred for aggression and she isn’t high strung, reasonably relaxed and gentle with the cats, playful and rough with the other dog (they are both pretty young). But she is freakishly strong. Smaller than our other dog but weighs the same, it’s like she is a black hole.
So I think your 3rd point is highly likely, but I do disagree about the genetic predisposition. If it can’t be genetically influenced then goldens are not more friendly than others, and smart dogs (poodles, Australian shepherd, etc.) are not actually smarter; they all have the same genetic predisposition.
Having an aggressive breed is possible, but as I said earlier I think the 3rd point pushes up the numbers of maulings quite a bit. I’d add a 4th point of a lot of people being real shit dog owners and not knowing how to properly raise a dog to be socially capable without harming others.
Science suggests this is not actually the case and that environment has a much larger impact on animal behavior than almost any factor: https://www.science.org/content/article/your-dog-s-breed-doesn-t-determine-its-personality-study-suggests
Any comment that gets more than one upvote fails the subject.
I gave your comment its second upvote.
Upvotes ideally don’t equate to agreement though.
I disagree. Lemmy is a very small group of individuals and these type of threads are going to have similar minded people finding eachother. In the grand scheme of things we are next to nothing in scale of the billions of people on this planet.
People overlook vegetarianism and semi-vegetarian lifestyles as an option too much and it is not helpful that real life examples of vegetarian cultures, get co-opted by Vegans purists as “Vegan cultures” in easily disproven claims- thus hurting the whole movement
To be honest, I could see myself as a vegetarian. I can still eat eggs, have mayo, and most importantly, eat cheese. Also with vegans, they don’t just abstain from eating animals, they also abstain from consuming animal products, and using them in general meaning that not only are you giving up on eggs and cheese, but also leather boots and jackets etc. That’s too much. We are omnivores. Our ancestors survived on the scraps left by lions and other predators. Our only way to keep warm was leather skins. We could survive on berries and fungi, but we couldn’t keep warm with fire only. Anyways, I’m taking this a bit too far, but my point is, I’m supportive of vegetarians, but not of vegans.
I’ve never been closer to vegan than I am now. And I love meat and animal products and have long given up on the illusion of any ethical consumption in capitalism. It just turns out meat is way overpriced and you can make some tasty meals for cheap without meat and most animal products.
I’m a vegetarian just because it’s the cheapest option. Meat is absurd in prices while going fully vegan, where I live, isn’t feasible either.
So I live off a mostly vegetarian diet. It’s not even for ethical reasons. It’s literally a “I want to save money” motivation.
Yeah the only animal I’m tryna save is me. Shits insane rn.
It’s pretty nuts what they’re asking for meat. I don’t do the major shopping in the family but last time I went to get some ground beef… holy sweet baby cheez wiz. I could swear it the price had doubled since the last time I looked (which was probably pre covid).
There are so many great vegetarian recipes out there. Like, I mean, original things that were designed without meat in mind from the start not fake meat stuff like those vegetarian ribs I made one time. shudders
The prices for beyond/impossible are 1:1 with real ground beef at my local grocerywhore.
The choice is so easy.
“the prices are 1:1 with real ground beef”
Okay, does it provide the same nutrients at the same amount of higher? Even then you’re comparing to ground beef, which is too expensive on its own already
I’ll stick to my vegetarian diet
I wish those worked for me. It’s an autistic texture thing for me, so anytime I try substitutes I nearly gag.
You absolutely can’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
I’ve had debates with vegans on something similar:
I’m not vegan, I’ll never be vegan. That’s a complete non-starter for me.What I have done is reduce my meat intake from 2/sometimes 3 meals a day to 1 meal per day - occasionally (less than once per month) two. Once Lab-grown meat is a viable alternative on cost/taste/texture, I’ll be all over that. I still won’t be vegan. Even if I reach a point where no animals are harmed from my diet.
I believe it is far easier to convince 1 Million people to do this than it would be to convert 100,000 people to full veganism. A Million people doing this would save Billions more animals per year than 100,000 vegan conversions and maybe even in itself convert a few of those people to full veganism along the way.
They’re never interested. It’s all or nothing. Black or white. Vegan or Animal killer. They usually have issues with lab grown meat, as well.
It’s as though they’re a member of an elite club and membership is more important than actually saving animals.
You’re probably still eating way too much animal products and you’ll most likely get bowel cancer and gout if you keep eating like that.
Way to confirm the stereotype lmao
Most likely? By this logic, most people are killed by bowel cancer. They aren’t.
I mean, most vegans would still commend your effort to reduce animal product consumption.
But from a moral standpoint, simply eating less animal products really doesn’t have much value. Imagine using your argument for other moral dilemmas.
“Racism is wrong, so I reduced the amount of racial slurs I use to only 1/3”
“Rape is wrong, so I only rape on Mondays now” (in reference to meatless Mondays)I hate to be so militant about it, but you either think animal abuse is acceptable or you don’t.
Now, what I do think could be a moral standpoint, if you really want to still be able to eat meat, is to only eat “humane” meat. I put “humane” in quotes because even farmers with the best intentions are still killing animals young. I don’t personally believe any animal product can be humane, but even then I can recognize that any animal that was raised on a pasture and ate real food is more ethical to eat than one in a factory.
So if you genuinely only ate pasture raised beef and chicken (and you were sure about it), then I would say that is quite honorable.
But from a moral standpoint, simply eating less animal products really doesn’t have much value. Imagine using your argument for other moral dilemmas.
Ahh yeah about that: My reasons are not what you’re calling “moral”. We are naturally omnivores. We’ve been omnivorous since before we came down from the trees. Probably since before we left the water. I don’t have a problem eating meat. I think a vegan diet is unnatural for us, though I have no issues with anyone who chooses that lifestyle.
My reasons are from a sustainability/environmental position. Our present consumption levels already put a strain on the planet, and we sure couldn’t sustain it if everyone on the planet ate meat three meaty meals a day. This is another reason I’m all about that lab grown meat.
You don’t need to get married or have kids to have a happy and fulfilling life
TikTok and YouTube shorts are brain-rotting garbage, and if you use them regularly you need to stop now. Yes, even if you claim you only watch educational stuff.
Also giving a child under the age of 8 or 9 a personal internet-connected device should be seen on a similar level as neglect if not full-on abuse.
What we’re currently calling AI isn’t AI but just a language processing system that takes its best guess at a response from it’s database of information they pilfered from the internet like a more sophisticated Google.
It can’t really think for itself and it’s answers can be completely wrong. There’s nothing intelligent about it.
This whole open AI has Artificial General Intelligence but they’re keeping it secret! is like saying Microsoft had Chat GPT 20 years ago with Clippy.
Humans don’t even know what intelligence is, the thing we invented to try to measure who’s got the best brains - we literally don’t even have scientific definition of the word, much less the ability to test it - so we definitely can’t program it. We are a veeeeerry long way from even understanding how thoughts and memories work; and the thing we’re calling “general intelligence” ? We have no fucking idea what that even means; there’s no way a bunch of computer scientists can feed enough Internet to a ML algorithm to “invent” it. (No shade, those peepos are smart - but understanding wtf intelligence is isn’t going to come from them.)
One caveat tho: while I don’t think we’re close to AGI, I do think we’re very close to being able to fake it. Going from Chat GPT to something that we can pretend is actual AI is really just a matter of whether we, as humans, are willing to believe it.
Copyright should have stayed the original initial 14 years with possible renewal to 28 years. But like in France back then, also include the original authors (last one alive, if several) lifespan. Hence, a copyright would last either the authors lifespans or 28 years, whichever is longer.
Moreover, the patent system is being abused and does not serve the original goal of “any useful art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device, or any improvement there on not before known or used.” It granted the applicant the “sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to others to be used” of his invention.. It needs major changes, including the requirement to have the “invention” be under examination by reputable third-party laboratories (such as Intertek, SGI, Underwriters Laboratories, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technischer Überwachungsverein, SGS - Société Générale de Surveillance, etc…) before being granted a patent. Nowadays, patents are given almost willy-nilly to anyone no matter how vague or obvious the supposed invention.
Nowadays, patents are being misused in Patent Ambush mechanisms and scenarios, meanwhile Patent Trolls and Hoarders whole existence is are to impede/obstruct legally and impose exorbitant levies/fees onto organization and companies actually innovating and developing useful art/process/devices. Even more incredible, there are Submarine Patents being hidden away to suddenly take hostage existing products and process of various companies by imposing extortionate royalties.
Not a single one of the Marvel movies are good. They just use dopaminergic techniques to teach brains to enjoy them.
Have you watched the first two Raimi-directed Spiderman movies? I think they stand alone well even for someone that doesn’t typically watch superhero movies.
I’d argue this is true of most entertainment. It works though. Cookies aren’t good either, but they trick my brain into thinking it’s happy for a few minutes. I’ll fucking take it.
I would say that this is good for most Hollywood movies and that I see Spielberg as the initiator. Except for Duel, all of his movies are craftsmanship, not art. And yes, that includes Schindler’s List, maybe as the most egregious example.
Can you elaborate on your second sentence? Not trying to be ignorant, but it genuinely sounds like “ice cream doesn’t taste good, it just has ingredients that makes your taste buds act favorable towards it”
Gosh, now I want ice cream!
Hawaiian pizza is good.
Not that it’s the best pizza, or even my favorite. It’s just a fine option.
That whole “pineapple on pizza” meme is incredibly lame
There’s no public debt crisis. People don’t understand how government debt works. One casualty of this is the slow green transition which will cost us dearly in the future.
