>A selfie uploaded by a schoolgirl was undressed by Grok, turning a “before school selfie” into an image of her in a bikini. As of January 15th this post was still live on X.
An image of six young girls wearing micro bikinis, generated by Grok. As of January 15th, this image was still publicly available on X.
I think there’s a clear distinction between (1) doing an act because you find it fun in itself, (2) doing an act because it eliminates an unwanted consequence of some other fun act.
When I say no woman gets an abortion “for fun”, I mean there is no woman for whom abortion belongs to (1); when some pro-lifer claims women get abortions “for fun”, they are talking about (2) not (1).
My claim that essentially everyone agrees it is immoral to harm babies for fun is talking about “for fun” in sense (1) not sense (2)
I don't disagree with either of you regarding the doomerism, but Anthropic just paid out the largest US copyright settlement ever, based upon their exposure to the liability of $150k per copyrighted work they faced.
I haven't gotten my $150k for one (like a lot of people, I wrote an IT book that chatgpt can 95% repeat sentences from), and nobody I know has gotten theirs either.
The settlement is for $3k per protected work of class members. Are you a class member? You should've been contacted by your publisher if you were. If you weren't in the shadow library, then you are not in the settlement.
In what way? It certainly does not mean the same thing to a developing artist as it does in the context on an LLM, so I do not even know why people bother with this wordsmithing.
My (non-authoritative) understanding was that after Vietnam there was a more recognised need to control what the media published, resulting in Operation Mockingbird and such. However, given how centralised the media has always been, I could see it being influenced before this.
I really shouldn't be so gobsmacked by people's ignorance of history, but it is astounding to me the number of replies here that seem to believe that the press really was well-behaved in this time period. When learning about the Spanish-American War, pretty much the most important bullet point covered in history class is the role of the press in essentially inventing the cause of the war, as exemplified by the infamous quote from a newspaper baron: "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."
The general term to look up is "yellow journalism."
I don't think, but I feel like situation was slightly better for some reasons:
* there were no internet, so local communities strived to inform things happening around more objectively. Later on, there were no need for local newspapers
* capitalism was on the rise and on its infancy, but families with a single person working could afford some of the things (e.g. house, car) hence there were no urgent need to selling out all your principles
* people relied on books to consume information, since books were difficult to publish and not easy to revert (like removing a blog post), people gave an attention to what they're producing in the form of books, hence consumers of those books were also slightly demanding in what to expect from other sources
* less power of lobby groups
* not too many super-rich / billionaires, who can just buy anything they want anytime, or ruin the careers of people going against them, hence people probably acted more freely.
But again, can't tell exactly what happened at that time, but in my time press is not free. That's why I said "probably"
> * not too many super-rich / billionaires, who can just buy anything they want anytime, or ruin the careers of people going against them, hence people probably acted more freely.
The provided timespan encompasses the 'gilded age' era, which saw some ridiculous wealth accumulation. Like J.P. Morgan personally bailed out as the US Treasury at one point.
Much of antitrust law was implemented to prevent those sorts of robber baron business practices (explicitly targeting Rockefeller's Standard Oil), fairly successfully too. Until we more or less stopped enforcing them and now we're largely back where we started.
I would disagree about capitalism being on the rise. Marx and his views grew after the 1850s and communist / socialist revolutions spread throughout Europe. There may have been more discussion of "capitalism" and an increase in industrialization, but "capital" had existed and operated for centuries before that. What changed was who owned the capital and how it was managed, specifically there has been a vast increase in central / government control.
I think this centralization of authority over capital is what has allowed for the power of lobbying, etc. A billionaire could previously only control his farms, tenant farmers, etc. Now their reach is international, and they can influence the taxing / spending the occurs across the entire economy.
Similarly, local communities were probably equally (likely far more) mislead by propaganda / lies. However, that influence tended to be more local and aligned with their own interests. The town paper may be full of lies, but the company that owned the town and the workers that lived there both wanted the town to succeed.
He predicted capitalisms fall, (which happened in the 1930s) but didn't predict that instead of the workers uniting and rising against the bourgeoisie that the bourgeoisie would just rebuild it and continue oppressing the masses
Capital continued to function just fine through the 1930s. Crops still grew on land. Dams produced electricity. Factories produced cars. What exactly failed?
Capitalism is subject to periodic crises; the Great Depression of the 30s beginning with the stock market crash of 1929 was the largest of those at the time it happened.
Yes, at the very least there wasn't strong polarization, so the return on propaganda content is lower. Now a newspaper risk losing their consumer more if they publish anything contrarian.
Publishing something to the contrary of popular belief is not being contrarian. It is not a virtue to be contrarian and forcing a dichotomy for the sake of arguing with people.
>But I don't think the author is correctly interpreting the principles of legal ethics, and their repeated questioning of attorney-client privilege, which I've considered to be one of the foundations of the American legal system, is hard to take seriously.
Any particular reason why you think the author is incorrectly interpreting the principles of legal ethics, including attorney-client privilege?
>Adams viewed this as a patriotic act, yes, but only insofar as he believed all accused of crimes in America deserved fair legal representation. He was a lawyer defending his clients, not the judge or jury trying to find the "truth" of the matter.
I think you misunderstood the point, which was that if Adams had knowledge that the british soldier did have such an intent, he'd be violating his ethical obligations by withholding that information on the principal of attorney-client privilege.
And?
reply