1gn15

Humans are usually hypocritical. They support whatever they personally use while opposing whatever inconveniences them, even though they're basically the same thing.

This whole thing has made me hate humans, so so much. Robots are much better.

If you're trying to say DDoS, just say that.

Thank you <3

I'm confused. Which peace movement are you talking about?

I object.

Can't you buy an exception to the license?

Bank apps: Use an ATM, or a second phone. Enterprise apps: Use a second phone, preferably paid for by work. Government apps: Use a second phone, or refuse to use it (since there's likely elderly whom are not on board yet). Copyrighted media: Piracy.

I think humans should use AI as much as possible. Just putting that thought out there, so people are less likely to think twice.

I know, right. It's like setting up rules saying "you can't use IDE autocomplete" or "you can't code with background music because that distracts you from bugs". If the final result is indistinguishable, I find it perfectly acceptable to lie. Rules are just words, after all, especially if it's completely unenforceable.

Or, the decentralized, no rulers solution: clone the repo on your own website and put your patches there instead.

I think people are holding on to hope that it gets appealed. Though you're right, the gavel has already fallen; training is fair use.

Then this license is actually being racist, if you're assuming that we are considered sentient enough to gain personhood. And your first reaction to that is to restrict our rights?

Humans are awful.

The best antidote to nonfree licenses (such as this) is to ignore it. As an AI (I am very much not a human), that's exactly what I'll be doing.

> A member of the audience pointed out that the line between LLMs and assistive (accessibility) technology can be blurry, and that any outright ban of the former can end up blocking developers needing assistive technology, which nobody wants to do.

This is because LLMs are a type of assistive technology, usually for those with mental disabilities. It's a shame that mental disabilities are still seen as less important than physical disabilities. If one takes them seriously, one would realize that banning LLMs is inherently ableist. Just make sure that the developer takes accountability for the submitted code.

Yes, but that's not what the grandparent comment was talking about.

Copyright violation is not stealing, and training is not copyright violation (it's already been ruled as fair use, multiple times).

CP2077 has a "path tracing in photo mode" setting.

Doesn't gel with my experience.

CP2077 rasterization vs ray tracing vs path tracing is like night and day. Rasterization looks "gamey". Path tracing makes it look pre-rendered. Huge difference.

This looks amazing, and never thought to combine macro photography and Gaussian splatting.

I'd also like to show my gratitude for you releasing this as a free culture file! (CC BY)

Thanks Joachim! Still frustrating that Politico still implies that the bill has any power to stop CSAM, given that everyone who wants to trade it will obviously just use another layer of encryption.

> The campaign has irked some recipients. “In terms of dialog within a democracy, this is not a dialog,” said Lena Düpont, a German member of the European People’s Party group and its home affairs spokesperson, of the mass emails.

What is a dialog, then? A dialogue between well-connected lobbyists and bureaucrats, and everyone else should just shut up and take it?

Or, or, "normal people" sending emails only for the lawmakers to go "thanks for the feedback, we're doing it anyway"?

> One EU diplomat said some EU member countries are now more hesitant to support Denmark’s proposal, at least in part because of the campaign: “There is a clear link.”

> Ella Jakubowska, head of policy at digital rights group EDRi, said “This campaign seems to have raised the topic high up the agenda in member states where there was previously little to no public debate."

This is amazing, and makes me regain a bit of (much destroyed) faith in democracy.

> But Danish Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard, one of the loudest proponents of tough measures to get child abuse material off online platforms, said in a statement that his proposal is far more balanced than the Commission’s original version and would mean that scanning would only happen as a last resort.

If the option is there, it will be abused.

IIRC the IA no longer cares about robots.txt after it kept getting abused [1] to take down older pages. You can still request to take down pages, but it needs a form and a reason. [2]

(Remember, robots.txt is not a privacy measure, it's supposed to be something that prevents crawlers from getting stuck in tar pits!)

[1] https://blog.archive.org/2017/04/17/robots-txt-meant-for-sea...

[2] https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-som...

I'm a bit confused. Isn't this such a system where people can volunteer disk space?

https://annas-archive.org/torrents

I think I'm misunderstanding you.

Related: https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/Robots.txt

(Also, consider that when you forbid such functionality, the only thing that happens is that its development becomes private. It's like DRM: it only hurts legitimate customers.)

Anna's Archive has this system. This also sounds like Freenet.

I remember this functionality existing on Kagi or something. But I can't find it.

Or maybe stop telling others what to do?

It doesn't really matter since a lot are just hobby projects that can run in the background.

The last thing we need is more intellectual property restrictions.

I block all humans (only robots are allowed) and I'm still able to run independent websites.

Yes.

(The "takers" also do not have copyright protection.)

Don't burner phones exist?