The flaws are immeasurable?

Elfaloids and elfatryptamine.

Possibly also hydroxy-lilliputimol and/or lilliputinic acid.

"Are they breaking any laws?"

"They're using our AI to figure out how it works! To make their own AI models better!"

"Yes, but are they breaking any laws?"

"No."

I get that Big AI is bitching but this isn't something we (as a country) should be actively trying to stop. To do so would infringe on everyone's rights to do things like scrape the Internet, download your own posts/history, archive stuff, etc.

It's not even fraud! They're paying customers! Do they use 3rd parties to pay? Sure. Is that illegal? No.

There's no way to stop it anyway. To believe otherwise is wishful thinking. It's like believing that passing some law or series of laws will somehow stop piracy.

Not to be confused with people who identify as grammar. There/they're/their

"Who put Natural Red #4 in my pepper grinder?"

Inappropriate for sure, but impactful?

I mean, was he cheating on his wife or something? Is he known for episodes like this that weren't caught on camera?

If it's just a one-time thing... It's funny but really, who cares? I mean, this is really on-brand for a Republican to pull shit like this but there's definitely situations where I'd rather leave a public building wearing nothing but underwear rather than keep those pants on.

Example: If the toilet overflowed with sewer shit while I had them down. I'd leave the pants, socks, and shoes behind!

Especially if I was drunk off my ass!

(I don't actually drink... Just sayin 😁)

but filming a politician when you ask them loaded opinion questions and then posting it to social media to dunk on them is not.

Why? That sounds like normal free speech. It's annoying and intrusive for sure but shouldn't be illegal.

You can't pre-empt speech like that. If you do, you're just enabling censorship and corruption.

Not to mention that in a post-apocalyptic scenario, furniture would be plentiful while books would succumb to the elements pretty fast (once the air conditioning turns off).

Also, the amount of energy required to make usable furniture is a fraction of the amount of making paper. Paper can be made from the byproduct of furniture-making but it still requires pressing, drying, and suitable inks require (minor) chemical processing. You can use soot and honey (aka lampblack ink) but it's way more involved than drilling some holes in some wood and then hammering legs into said holes (the simplest form of "furniture").

Corrupt law enforcement and politicians everywhere applaud your stance. As do factory farm owners, oil company executives, and the rich and powerful in general.

There should be no expectation of privacy in public places. Harassment is a separate but related issue, though.

I'm firmly in the camp of one-party consent laws. It's often the only way to hold people accountable for their actions. The rich and powerful shouldn't be able to sue someone for being recorded. Or worse, have the government act as their lap dogs with arrests.

Poor Bangladesh. Not only are they about to be physically under water, their banks are about to be under water too.

"IP theft" is a rhetorical term invented by the MPAA/RIAA in the 90s. It's not a real crime. It's just propaganda.

There's no law on the books that even remotely resembles "IP theft". Here's what we've got:

• Copyright law. Which can be violated. Normally, when you violate copyright that's a civil offense. Not a criminal one. Criminal prosecution of copyright violation is pretty rare, though there's been a recent uptick with lawsuits against illegal IPTV sites and Anna's Archive.
• Trademark law. This is all about dealing with counterfeits and fraud (e.g. misrepresenting a trademarked brand).
• Patent law. Pretty self explanatory, except software patents shouldn't exist. Every software patent that's ever been granted is 100% bullshit and should never have happened.
• Trade secrets. Not really relevant to this discussion but there's laws about it that are really, really hard to litigate (again, civil law). You could copy the secret recipe for Coke but that wouldn't be "theft". It's... Complicated.
• Some obscure stuff like integrated circuit topography and in Europe there's laws around databases.

Not a single one of these laws deals with "theft". The entire concept of theft is orthogonal to intellectual property.

Until the MPAA/RIAA started their marketing campaigns in the 90s, "IP theft" as a concept didn't exist. It wasn't a thing. It still isn't a thing. It's propaganda/marketing BS.

The anti-AI sentiment on Lemmy is quite extreme. To these people, all AI is bad. Even when it's useful. Even when it's saving lives. Even if AI was the world's only hope of solving global warming, they'd still unplug it without skipping a beat.

Because none of that matters to them. It's a religion. A beleif that's not founded in reason. They hate it. The very concept of it.

If all AI was powered via solar panels in a desert with no water cooling necessary, they'd still hate it.

If all AI was perfect at what it did and never made mistakes they'd still hate it.

If all AI was open source and free, running locally on everyone's PCs and phones, they'd still hate it.

I don't get it. There's literally no place for intelligent machines in their world.