So you would support government limiting an individual’s right to run software on their computer because you don’t agree with what the software outputs?
That’s absolute nonsense. The entire premise of these machine learning models is that they accept any arbitrary input, you would want to neuter that?
So they’re just desktop environment reskins? With sons basic config files changed? What’s the point? You can download some packages and files any time from normal Arch for the same outcome.
It is.
This is sadly how a lot of Computer Science students think nowadays.
Only the pregnant person and their doctor matter.
They avoided going to a hospital because they didn’t want the child, so they gave birth elsewhere. There was no doctor present to give medical advice.
The baby didn’t make it because of their negligence, so they burned and buried it.
How in the world could you defend something as gruesome as that? They’re monsters.
This feels like satire. There’s no way someone could actually write this without laughing at how absurd it is.
They won’t.
The first album I heard from M83 was Dead Cities, Red Seas & Lost Ghosts, and it’s been my favorite ever since. Highly recommend playing that one front to back if you have the time, it’s an adventure.
So it’s acceptable for AIs to generate these sorts of outputs, as long as they aren’t shared online? Sure, the outputs aren’t very tasteful, but they’re certainly not illegal by any stretch.
Why do you think the government should intervene, and what you would even expect them to do? No laws are being broken.
If you somehow forbid AIs from generating this through a national law just because it’s offensive, it’ll open to floodgates to ban 1,000 other things that are offensive. Where do you draw the line? Ban this content from websites like TikTok, sure. But it doesn’t make sense to regulate this from the AIs themselves.