Lemmy.world tries really hard to follow the law. That means cracking down on illegal content. So yes, we are puritanical here.

At the very bottom is a menu with an entry called “Instances”. Click that to see lists of linked and blocked instances.

It’s really only a minority, or else the world would not work. Think how the theory of evolution gained mainstream acceptance, despite resistance by fanatics who had support by society,

(In case someone has been living under a rock in the last 48 hours. Anthropic’s new model “Mythos” has been finding a lot of new vulnerabilities. This is about patching one.)

Tears of joy, no doubt. No wait. Java…

As you can tell from the previous answers: It depends.

The bigger an LLM is, the more power it uses. AI models can be quantized or distilled to yield smaller but less capable models. Providers may try to route you to the cheapest model that can handle your prompt.

Another question is the length of the output. The length of the input matters less but might be relevant for processing long texts.

The energy used for training is relatively insignificant once you average it over its lifetime. The energy efficiency of a particular data center will certainly matter more.

Providers like OpenAI claim that the typical query uses about 0.3Wh. That’s about the same as an idling phone charger uses in an hour; ie charger plugged into the outlet but not into the phone.

If voice cloning violates right of publicity when sound recordings are fed into a model directly,

I doubt that is true.

These things are not internationally standardized. So it very much depends on where you do it.

Q1 is if you are allowed to use a recording for that purpose. This is legal in some places but not in others. I don’t think it has to do with the right of publicity, though.

Q2 is what you are allowed to do with the output. If you fool people about who is talking, then right of publicity enters. It probably does not matter how you imitate the voice, but only if you fool people. If you imitate a voice badly, but deliberately fool an elderly person who is hard of hearing and not quite sharp anymore, then it doesn’t matter if it was a bad imitation.

Parody is probably fine in most places, but standards vary.

Fully anonymous. No contest.

ID Verification is only about controlling what is published. Here the promise is that it will suppress bots, but that wouldn’t be the only use. Setting up your own little space with ID requirement is absolutely an option. That that’s not the default, tells us that overwhelmingly people do not want that.

Anyone who thinks that people using their real name will behave any better can go to Facebook for a reality check.

You can’t get more witchy and gothic than Inkubus Sukkubus. Maybe Heart of Lilith? It’s not their most catchy song. Pagan Born is nice. Alternatives: Midnight Queen, Vampyre Erotica, or Aradia.

For something OG (Original Goth) maybe Spellbound by Siouxsie And The Banshees.

I had just heard the expression: “It helps the general effort.” It was in a Discworld audiobook. It made me think: “Yeah, I could use some help right now.” That was still rattling around in my head when I had to come up with a username. I don’t remember what I was having trouble with, so I guess that worked out.

Yeah, one would think so. And those were the hobbyists that Gates was addressing in that open letter.

“They” is the copyright industry. The same people, who are suing AI companies for money, want the Internet Archive gone for more money.

I share the fear that the copyrightists reach a happy compromise with the bigger AI companies and monopolize knowledge. But for now, AI companies are fighting for Fair Use. The Internet Archive is already benefitting from those precedents.

In the US, copyright is limited by Fair Use. It is still IP. Eventually, you’d just be changing how Fair Use works. Not all for the better, I think.

Maybe one could compare it to a right of way over someone’s physical property. The public may use it for a certain purpose, in a limited way, which lowers its value. But what value it has, belongs to the owner.

What kind of person owned a computer as a hobby in 1976?

That’s true in the same way that Trump’s tariffs are paid by other countries. Which is to say: Not at all.

Bill Gates was no billionaire at the time. His background was probably shared by almost all computer hobbyists at the time.

“Property is theft.”

the caveats that commercializing someone else’s work or taking credit for someone else’s work should be illegal.

So, not actually abolishing IP, then.

It’s a bit of a split among libertarians. Some very notable figures like Ayn Rand were strong believers in IP. In fact, Ayn Rand’s dogmas very much align with what is falsely represented as left-wing thought in the context of AI.

It’s really irritating for me how much conservative capitalist ideals are passed off as left-wing. Like, attitudes on corporations channel Adam Smith. I think of myself as pragmatic and find that Smith or even Hayek had some good points (not Rand, though). But it’s absolutely grating how uneducated that all is. Worst of all, it makes me realize that for all the anti-capitalist rhetoric, the favored policies are all about making everything worse.

I really don’t get how opinions on intellectual property and its “theft” turn 180 whenever AI is mentioned.

There’s that episode of The Orville where social media is the law.

https://orville.fandom.com/wiki/Majority_Rule

I find it very unexpected. It used to be understood that IP laws favor monopolies. EG I don’t remember the OS community being on the side of Oracle in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc.

Maybe it just passed me by.