Like was it a meaningful debate or a flat out flame war? And what was the main theme you were arguing over?

  • BJW@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    Yeah, we’re all thieves. Only the blind and deaf are not. Great argument. You win.

      • BJW@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        Bravo. You’re great at knowing your bullshit argument will win any debate.

        Out of curiosity, if someone wants to become an artist and trains by watching Disney films, how much do they owe Disney before they’re allowed to make anything?

        Oh, wait, let me guess: the rules you’ve made up don’t apply to biological neutral networks, only digital ones, right? Brilliant. I can see why you win debates by calling bullshit right at the onset.

        • Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          13 days ago

          Or maybe I was talking about how the material fed into the AI was largely pirated content that they did not pay for. Content, that if you are a human, you’d legally have to pay to read. And they got away with pirating jusssst fine for commerical use.

          I don’t need to get into flimsy but still correct shit about how there’s a substantial difference between only extracting from other’s content compared to writing with your own experiences combined, because they committed crimes to obtain the data that they used to create AI.

          More however, you pretend that personal hardware somehow doesn’t have an environmental impact? That’s also laughable.

          My call of bullshit was correct, so I’m going to laugh at you complaining about it