(Thread IKs:
OwlFancier)
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:They haven't eaten for 16 days? Correct
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:56 |
|
|
Angus Barbieri fasted for a year in the 60s and lost like 300 pounds
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 01:57
|
|
|
If you fast for about 2 or 3 months most people will lose 100% of their body weight within the next couple of decades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 01:59
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:an ex-council property that's being let out by a private landlord, and many of those parasites do ban smoking inside. The landlords have gone Woke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 02:21
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:You make it a legal requirement for anything fed into an AI to have permission and attribution, that's literally all we need right at this exact moment. Anyone feeding their own work in is covered, people can easily contribute their own work to a specific AI, and the general use models that scraped the entire internet then started poisoning everything with garbage immediately die. This would mean that the only people who get to use, license and sell good AI are massive IP rights holders (like they are already doing with Adobe and Getty, maybe large book publishers could get in on it too). That is a literal nightmare scenario for anyone who is not one of those giant corporations and a huge win for predatory capitalism. e: There's also a significant risk that such legislation would make currently legal non-ai forms of media use in production illegal for anyone who is not, again, one of the giant rights holders. It would work great in a world of perfectly spherical artists where every human has exclusive non-transferrable rights to anything he contributes to. Sadly, that is very much emphatically not the world we live in, or anywhere close to it. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Jan 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 02:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That does seem like the sort of thing you should just lie about as I don't imagine the insurance companies have deep cover agents taking incriminating photos of you 40 years ago smoking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 06:46
|
|
|
I imagine they just sue you for breach of contract if they can prove you lied (but probably only if they had to pay out on a policy).
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 07:09
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:You make it a legal requirement for anything fed into an AI to have permission and attribution, that's literally all we need right at this exact moment. Anyone feeding their own work in is covered, people can easily contribute their own work to a specific AI, and the general use models that scraped the entire internet then started poisoning everything with garbage immediately die. There’s some technical problems: - you can’t prove something has been included in the model - you can just add it again - you can’t remove something from the model - you can’t prove something hasn’t been included
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 09:00
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:This would mean that the only people who get to use, license and sell good AI are massive IP rights holders (like they are already doing with Adobe and Getty, maybe large book publishers could get in on it too). I'm not sure what you mean here. Large companies are already the only entities who can afford to hold onto and curate a large body of work because that poo poo is time-consuming and expensive, and it only becomes more so if you throw it all into an AI model. There are no small-time creatives spinning up their own limitless dream machine and they never will, as GenAI is an inherently intensive and resource-heavy process. It's a bad thing that big corporations own a ton of IPs, but that's already the case and isn't going to be made worse if you prevent them from further helping themselves to everyone else's stuff that they DON'T own and obscuring it in AI datasets. Reading the words "make it a legal requirement for anything fed into an AI to have permission and attribution" and concluding that this is actually good for big corporations is absolutely wild. And if your point is that smaller creatives would also benefit by having their own theft machine, AI bros already tried that line of reasoning and were roundly told to gently caress off by everyone. And what do you mean when you mention "exclusive non-transferrable rights"? If people make something for someone else then they can give that person the right to use or own it as defined by their contract, and that person can then throw it in an AI if they want. That's always been the case. The artist can also keep the rights to their own work even if based on someone else's property and the rights holders to that property don't get to use it for their own purposes even if it falls outside of fair use legislation, they just have to request a DMCA takedown. AI doesn't change any of this, the whole point of the current lawsuits in America are literally to prove that current models are breaking the law. Mass corporate ownership of IPs is a separate problem to that, or at least a different layer of problem. Mano posted:There’s some technical problems: - You can if you require commercially available AI models to list their sources - You can't if you require commercially available AI models to list their sources - You can if you're a commercially available AI model with a list of sources - You can if you require commercially available AI models to list their sources Like no, you can't stop everyone on earth using AI, but the main issue that needs tackling is how the complete obfuscation of existing models is being used to rob people of their jobs with their own labour, and while no-one likes the AI bros engaging with it, they aren't the core problem here. Doctor_Fruitbat fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Jan 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 10:43
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:Like no, you can't stop everyone on earth using AI, but the main issue that needs tackling is how the complete obfuscation of existing models is being used to rob people of their jobs with their own labour. The companies most likely to do that are the large IP holders, they would also likely sell access to such models to other companies or individuals if they had a legal monopoly. The content creators will not get anything out of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 10:55
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:The content creators will not get anything out of that. What are they getting out of it now 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 11:29
|
|
|
When you know a little about copyright: gently caress copyright When you know a moderate amount about copyright: Well this protects me from exploitation by large rights hoarders and also there are many historical instances such as the battle of the booksellers that have demonstrated the necessity of a moderate copyrighting system and also there are several high profile cases where the little guy has managed to defend their intellectual property against corporate giants so When you know a lot about copyright: gently caress copyright
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 11:31
|
|
|
sinky posted:What are they getting out of it now Nothing really, beyond the ability to use it themselves, but it's not like limiting access would be an improvement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 11:35
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:The pouches can give you the ol’ mouth and throat cancer if I remember right. They’re nice like Good god, did I ever love Marlboro reds in my 20s. Absolutely brutal cigarette and the thought of having them now makes my stomach turn but for that window of time where I gunned it, they were just the best with a pint. Hindsight makes this all look mental now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 11:37
|
|
|
The pouches are less likely to give you oral cancer than smoking (or bizarrely, and probably a methodology issue, not smoking), but there is a link with pancreatic cancer and afaik nobody is sure why. (Oral use of Swedish moist snuff and risk for cancer of the mouth, lung, and pancreas in male construction workers: a retrospective cohort study - Lancet)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 11:40
|
|
|
82.3% chance of death by snus snus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 11:44
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:The pouches are less likely to give you oral cancer than smoking (or bizarrely, and probably a methodology issue, not smoking), but there is a link with pancreatic cancer and afaik nobody is sure why. There's a difference between old tabacco pouches and these new Zyn style stuff - I think because one is all the poo poo that comes with a cigarette and the zyn is just a bag of nicotene salt so chances of cancers are probably lower with the new ones. Stiil, people forget how bad Nicotine is for your gums, and more importantly your blood pressure. Believe me I know!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 11:46
|
|
|
frytechnician posted:Good god, did I ever love Marlboro reds in my 20s. Absolutely brutal cigarette and the thought of having them now makes my stomach turn but for that window of time where I gunned it, they were just the best with a pint. Hindsight makes this all look mental now. Benson and Hedges FTW Caned them beauties up until a few years ago when I found a vape that hit the spot
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 11:49
|
|
|
Fantastic comment here from one of Twitters best posters https://twitter.com/flying_rodent/status/1751905960694563031?s=46
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 11:57
|
|
|
frytechnician posted:Good god, did I ever love Marlboro reds in my 20s. Absolutely brutal cigarette and the thought of having them now makes my stomach turn but for that window of time where I gunned it, they were just the best with a pint. Hindsight makes this all look mental now. Replace Marlboros with Nortti for me. I quit cold turkey in 2008 and still think about them now and then.  Why do you have to be so bad for me?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 11:59
|
|
|
Aipsh posted:There's a difference between old tabacco pouches and these new Zyn style stuff - I think because one is all the poo poo that comes with a cigarette and the zyn is just a bag of nicotene salt so chances of cancers are probably lower with the new ones. Stiil, people forget how bad Nicotine is for your gums, and more importantly your blood pressure. Believe me I know! I agree that none are exactly a health food, but yeah jury is still out whether it is something in the rest of the plant that increases pancreatic cancer risk, or whether jamming nicotine into your bloodstream alone also makes your pancreas sad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 12:00
|
|
|
Another reminder about today's High Court ruling. He called a load of people peadophiles and will no doubt be owing a lot of money this afternoon. Schadenfreude is best served live, so a heads up for 4pm: https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1751681101439947208
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 12:06
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:
I'm hoping for a Budd Dwyer moment
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 12:11
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:Another reminder about today's High Court ruling. He called a load of people peadophiles and will no doubt be owing a lot of money this afternoon. Sneak preview: "im not owned! im not owned!!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 12:11
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:- You can if you require commercially available AI models to list their sources you're trying to lawyer a technical fact: yes, you can make the COMPANIES list the sources, but you can't prove that they included something or didnt etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 12:17
|
|
|
smellmycheese posted:Fantastic comment here from one of Twitters best posters Strange to see the Guardian's liberal-centrist mob still writing their fussy, prescriptive articles about what Starmer 'must' prioritize' and 'must' "take heed of": he's made it achingly clear what he plans to do in office (The status quo, but more so, forever) and isn't paying the faintest bit of attention to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 12:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GBNewsSpin/status/1751768779481108933 I'd never heard of her before this tweet, but this lip filled botoxed face might be the next UKIP leader. Is there even space in the political landscape for UKIP anymore?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 12:39
|
|
|
Sure you could just let climate change happen if you let people move anywhere. Is UKIP pro letting people move anywhere?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 12:45
|
|
|
She's like a walking parody https://twitter.com/cappedsleeves/status/1749870917625205238 They've definitely hosed
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 12:51
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:She's like a walking parody It's weird, but also the most boring story I've ever heard
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 12:53
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:It's weird, but also the most boring story I've ever heard This part isn't https://twitter.com/GBNewsSpin/status/1751936835385733378 So it appears that UKIP had no applicants for leadership other than this woman
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 13:09
|
|
|
Is anyone with Benenden? My parents are getting at me to have some sort of alternative health provider available, and they're non-profit (plus I think work might have a deal with them)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 13:19
|
|
|
My man is Down Bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 13:22
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:This part isn't Of course, the UKIP chairman is into feet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 13:24
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:Another reminder about today's High Court ruling. He called a load of people peadophiles and will no doubt be owing a lot of money this afternoon. The judge releases her ruling at 3 so I'm curious if it'll really take him an hour to read it. Maybe this painfully slow reading ability is the real reason he kept losing acting roles. But nice of him to tell people where to gather with bottles of piss ready for him opening his fat gob.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 13:37
|
|
|
10 minutes to read it, 50 to do enough rails to manage the press conference
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 13:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GBNewsSpin/status/1751333623607750893 This was quite a thing too. You can tell she's simply reading a script, and does it in such a weird disconnected way as though she's on a load of tranquilisers. I wonder who actually wrote those words? e: lmao vvvv fuctifino fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Jan 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 13:39
|
|
|
ChatGPT-4
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 13:41
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:https://twitter.com/GBNewsSpin/status/1751333623607750893 It came out a few months ago that all the Daily Mail racist articles supposedly written by black people were all ghost written, presumably by white journalists. It got zero attention and was quickly memory holed. Wouldn't be surprised if this was the same.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 13:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:56 |
|
|
Mano posted:you're trying to lawyer a technical fact: yes, you can make the COMPANIES list the sources, but you can't prove that they included something or didnt etc. Surely you can just audit the compiling?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 14:18
|
|
