effingjoe

How did you expect it to work? From kbin.social here.

Say what you will about LLMs, but they're not really prone to misspellings.

Every day, new people start actually paying attention to politics. Don't assume that because we know that Boebert is a terrible person, that everyone knows that she's a terrible person.

Not to mention, people halfheartedly paying attention to politics seem to require near-constant reminders, or they forget when it comes time to cast a vote.

Long story short, this woman has real power over some people's lives, by the fact that she is their representative. We should never stop shining a light on the actions of people with real power. In my opinion, anyway.

Historically automation was on rote/repetitive tasks. This is a bit different.

"Historically" it did, but only because those were easiest to automate, however this LLM stuff is really not any different. It turns out that human creativity is pretty easy to convincingly fake with software. I don't really believe this is the end of human art, but it might be the end of human work-for-hire art.

I'll just leave this here:

Canon 2A.

An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.

I think the "appearance of impropriety" ship has long sailed. She should recuse herself. She won't. Because it's more than just the appearance of impropriety.

You're not wrong, but tbh it's going to be a matter of time before they just abandon the desire to mimic real people and move to just making up people that don't exist and using them instead.

It's a shot in the dark, but are you running a vpn on your phone? That might mess things up.

I do not disagree with anything you said.

You have taken a turn towards anger, if I'm reading the correct context, but I'm just a messenger. I also wasn't expecting you to like it, and I guess you can complain all you'd like, but I was expecting to help you accept it. To be sure, whether or not you accept it won't change whether it happens.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

I don't see any reason why I should transcribe a video for you, when it's freely available to watch at your leisure. I find the video series insightful when it comes to understanding and combatting bigotry and those that champion it-- and for sure, you may not. I only wanted to bring it to your attention because it directly applies to the discussion, and assuming your end goal is combatting bigotry, you might be interested in knowing that the way you're going about it isn't likely to work.

You are trying to muddy the water, but I don't see why.

We aren't talking about location exif data on pictures, and people can and should strip that off (there are tools to do so) before posting online, but that has nothing to do with LLMs and their like. Privacy violations are certainly fair game for legislation-- but as you are finding out, you don't get a say in how people consume your work. I could buy your work and burn it, or read it to my dog, or put it on a shelf, or study it daily to better learn how to make similar works. Once you make it available for public consumption, the public can consume it, even if that consumption eventually hurts you financially.

One of the many problems with IP laws is that it is so ingrained in our society that people who benefit from it directly forget that it's not all encompassing, nor is it a law of nature. For instance, I am free to make a drawing of the main characters in Stranger Things, drawn in the style of The Simpsons. That violates no IP laws. If a computer learns a specific style of painting from a specific artist and can recreate that style on command, there is still no violation of IP laws, just as it would be if a human did it. And it's plausible (though, unlikely) that someone could learn a specific style of animation (like, the simpsons) and then go on to replace the originator of that style in the show. Styles aren't copyrightable.

Your job is very likely to be replaced and there very likely nothing you can do about it. That's the bottom line. Mine may as well-- I am in the field of Software QA right now, for military robots. I feel like my time to be replaced isn't quite here-- I can't imagine it's that far off. Acknowledging this is just prudent.

I can't watch the video for you, friend. If you're curious, watch it. If you're not, then don't.