It’s part of the common law tradition though. Could it not be brought back?

Doomscrolling will doom us all. Fatalism is fatal. Rage against the dying of the light. Start building community, or start building bombs. Those are your choices.

The president is also openly corrupt, by orders of magnitude more. That crypto scheme for one is just a blatantly obvious bribery mechanism. Sure, the justices serve for life. But if a president is willing to directly violate explicit court orders, he could easily decide not to leave office as well. He could issue an executive order saying, "in my opinion, the two-term limit doesn’t apply because <bullshit reasons.> And then when the court rules against him, just ignore their ruling. A lawless president is a president for life.

Ultimately, philosophically, I don’t see why a president that openly defies the law should enjoy the protections of the law. Want to be lawless? Then you can be an outlaw. Those who live by the sword should die by the sword.

Maybe not in terms of criminal accountability. But again, the court has ruled against Trump numerous times. The idea they blindly support everything he does is pure fiction. In his first term, they ruled against him many times.

They would have checks and balances. They could still be removed by impeachment. Members of the court would still have to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Couldn’t the same be said for impeachment and conviction in the Senate? If Congress can simply remove a president they don’t like, how does this not end up making kingmakers like the Praetorian Guard of ancient Rome?

The court has ruled against Trump on numerous occasions. The idea they blindly support everything he does is simply not backed up by reality.

Did they rule that he has broad immunity? Yes. But ultimately they ruled it in a way that puts them as the arbiter of which acts have said immunity.

Fuck! I knew I should have stocked up on bauxite!

Anesthesia is different from sleep.

deleted by creator

• Can it ever get to the point where it wouldn’t be vulnerable to this? Maybe. But it would require an entirely different AI architecture than anything that any contemporary AI company is working on. All of these transformer-based LLMs are vulnerable to this.

• That would be fine. That’s what they should have done to train these models in the first place. Instead they’re all built on IP theft. They were just too cheap to do so and chose to build companies based on theft instead. If they hired their own artists to create training data, I would certainly lament the commodification and corporatization of art. But that’s something that’s been happening since long before OpenAI.

The key in my mind is that this technology cannot work independently. A bucket excavator can replace the work of many people digging by hand. But the operation of the machine truly replaces the laborers. Some hand labor is still required in any excavation, but the machine itself is capable of operating just fine without the workers it is replacing.

But LLM image generators? They are only possible from the work of artists. They are directly trained off of artists’ work. Even worse, the continued existence of LLMs requires the never-ending continual contribution of humans. When AI image generators are trained off the results from AI image generators, things rapidly generate into literal static. It’s making a copy of a copy. If all art becomes made by LLMs, then the only recent data to train future models will be the output of other LLMs, and the whole thing collapses like a snake devouring its own tail.

This is also the crucial difference between how image generators and actual artists work. Some will say that how LLMs work is simply the same learning process that humans learn through. The image generator trains off pre-existing art, and so does a human artist, proponents of AI will say.

But we can see the flaw in this in that real artists do not suffer generational decay. Human artists have trained off the work of other artists, in a chain unbroken since before the rise of civilization. Yes, artists can learn technique and gain inspiration from the work of other artists, but humans are capable of true independent creation. Image generators OTOH are just blindly copying and summarizing the work of others. They have no actual sense of what art is, what makes it good, or what gives it soul. They don’t even have a sense of what makes an image comprehensible. They’re just playing a big blind correlation game of inputs and outputs. And so, if you train one AI off another AI’s output, it decays like making a copy of a copy.

This is a crucial difference between AI “art” and human art. Human art is an original creation. As such, new art can be endlessly created. AI “art” can only blindly copy. So unless the AI can get continual references from actual real human art, it quickly diverges into uselessness.

The ditch digger replaced by an excavator has no real means to legally object. They were paid for their previous jobs, and are simply no longer needed. But real human artists and AI? This software is going to be a never-ending vampire on their creative output. It has only been created by stealing their past work, and it will only remain viable if it can continue to steal their work indefinitely into the future.

It’s called oat milk because it’s a nut-based beverage deliberately designed to mimic many of the properties and uses of actual cow’s milk. It’s not like oat milk is literally just juice pressed from oats. There are a whole series of steps, added ingredients, and chemical processes meant to make the resulting product as interchangeable for cow’s milk as possible.