SpringFish
7d ago
but you can tell
How?
SpringFish
7d ago
Their similarity is in following logical, thought-out principles. The real opposite is normiedom, i.e. just do whatever everyone else is doing, and "we do it like this because we've always been doing it like this, my father and his father did it so as well" and I live my life like this because that's what everyone else expects and they would point their fingers and laugh at me otherwise. It also differs from the morality that the tyrant would want to install in everyone which boils down to "I do it because I was ordered to do it".
Both Stoicism and rationalism are about taking control of your own simpleton mind and applying superior individual control over it using one's own willpower and superseding the trappings of regular normal-people thinking. I know that this is a broad umbrella, but "just be a normal person and do what everyone else is doing, go with the flow, don't ever be weird" is the true opposite pole.
SpringFish
7d ago
Yes because they regard as the highest form of morality and integrity the consistent following of Truth, logical, rational truth and reason to wherever it may lead. When the conclusion from first principles matches common sense, at least you still have a cool story for why you do the common thing. When it deviates, then it's a moral imperative to follow through with the logical derivation and disregard normie common sense, since if you fell back to normie common sense each time a conclusion is "strange", especially when the stakes are high, then what even differentiates you from a larper who just vibes on rationalism but doesn't put their money where their mouth is? Skin in the game! And anyway, if you didn't choose your intellect and reason over normie grass touching, then how are you superior to them anyway? If you're at the end of the day also just running normie script, then it would turn out that your life has to also be judged according to normie criteria. You're no longer a wizard among muggles with the special power of Logic and Intellect (no coincidence that HPMOR is a fanfic of HP).
And they eternally conflate external explanatory analysis and first-person choices.
This disgust at the calculated "loyalty-like" behavior that appears to be loyalty but is actually some kind of conscious game theory or whatnot, seems related to women's ick about finding out that someone used PUA tactics on them. They just want a guy to be attracted and to act "naturally". Same here. You want the man to be loyal "naturally", not just because they feel this is the best tactic and course of action right now to achieve their objectives.
SpringFish
7d ago
Sorry I don't understand the polarity of which way you think it will go. You mean anti-AI people will get it their way and govt and pro-AI people will retreat, and refuse to grant "authorship" to AI-generated stuff, where AI-generated is broadly interpreted? Because that takes away the commercial value of AI art, hence AI art-making won't be profitable and hence not done, and hence human artists can keep making money?
Right. Generally, as I understand, copyright is very generous (when no AI is involved), in the sense that as long as you exercise the slightest creativity, they don't question stuff like "but you just randomly threw a pile of trash on the floor, that's not a sculpture" or "you just put a red square on white background, that's just geometry, not an art piece" etc. because that would kill a lot of contemporary "what even is art anyway" type of art.
So it seems like if you use a ControlNet, or any similar guidance, you're good for sure. But
For example, if a user instructs a text-generating technology to “write a poem about copyright law in the style of William Shakespeare,” she can expect the system to generate text that is recognizable as a poem, mentions copyright, and resembles Shakespeare’s style. But the technology will decide the rhyming pattern, the words in each line, and the structure of the text. When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship. As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.
Now if the user types "change the rhyme pattern to ... and make the lines shorter" and gets another poem fitting this requirement. Under the historical broad interpretation of "creativity" (which doesn't have to be impressive or painstakingly high effort), this would have to count as enough creative input I think.
Same with images. Today's AI chat apps can do iterative work on images that wasn't available in 2023 (when the doc was written), you could just re-generate with the same or a different prompt, but real editing wasn't possible. Today, you can tell ChatGPT what to change, and it will only change that part and keep the rest the same (as much as it can). So if you do 3 such iterations, each time specifically naming an aspect you want changed, that has to be enough... And what about selection? Is that exercise of creative judgment enough? Generate 10 Shakespeares and pick the one you like best? Based on the above text, I guess no. But what if you change your prompt inbetween?
I highly doubt the guy just sat down to the computer, typed out the perfect prompt for Tung Tung Sahur and got an image and he ran with that. He likely experimented with lots of weird and absurd character ideas and this one came out the funniest and he wrote and rewrote that prompt to make it maximally funny. It's absurd to deny him authorship for this.
This seems useful for the case of a particular image, but I believe copyright extends to the full fictional character, like I can't draw e.g. Lion King characters even in novel settings and poses and make a product out of it, and this is not just due to trademarks, as I understand.
Now in that case, we'd need to know the very first original brainrot images. If the person created one version without AI, then also prompted some AIs to make the character, that presumably doesn't reset the copyright. Like, if I describe Simba's appearance to AI and it draws me a Lion, it doesn't mean it's now public domain. Of course one would have to prove there was a non AI version.
But if the fictional characters can be copyrighted as such, not specific renditions of them, then does the specific execution of a particular depiction really matter? The creativity is in the invention of the character itself.
What are the traditional elements, when it comes to the design of a character in the abstract, as opposed to the creation of a particular image as artwork?
(It's also a question what is with 3D renderers like Blender, which use complex shaders to make the final image. Is that traditional? How about photoshop and generative content fill? Does it have to involve mouse movements that move on top of the image? Or does it have to be deterministically predictable what it will look like if I click a button labeled "Render" as opposed to "Generate"? What's up with procedurally generated textures and terrains?)
SpringFish
7d ago
but I believe he’s making more than enough from the character’s likeness already, why does he need more?
I believe Roblox has made enough money already, why do they need more?
SpringFish
7d ago
AI-generated works are public domain in most countries
This sounds suspicious to me. I have no idea about Indonesia, but the usual criterion for copyright is creativity, not the tool. If you type a long prompt and then iterate and select after many generations, then it should be enough human creativity in there. And how the model creator got the training data should have no bearing on this. As long as it's not regurgitating a particular copyright protected character or image in that specific output, there should be no problem.
You didn't specify why any of these actors are claiming they own this character. That seems quite a big omission. If one of them is the original individual who used AI to make this character's image, then I'm actually on their side. It is a creative act to specify this nontrivial character form and presumably the prompt wasn't two or three words and they probably didn't pick the very first result.
SpringFish
7d ago
It's our DNA.
SpringFish
9d ago
Yes, as a man the best chance of knowing about their existence is through relatives. I as a not very outgoing personality have female relatives with similar disposition and I see how their life goes and they tell me about their female friend circle and how they spend their time (not going out much). They still have relationships, but they don't cast a wide net. It's usually colleagues, friend-of-a-friend etc. Not someone they got to know at a bar or larger-scale party.
SpringFish
9d ago
Wasn't low fertility seen as good at the time? Population bomb, Paul Ehrlich etc?
SpringFish
9d ago
Isn't casual sex also going down? At least from some peak of a couple of decades ago?
SpringFish
9d ago
This may be due to selection effects.
I think you're dismissing too many women under the category of "women who are largely not interested in dating and romance in the first place (too anxious, focused on studies, etc.)." There are women who are not party girls and don't go out much and indeed focus on studies, are reserved and shy etc. You won't see them a lot and they have fewer relationships, in which they stay for longer time. They partner up with guys who are in their (relatively small) social circle, often by happenstance, etc.
SpringFish
9d ago
though I've not heard it called that before
It's a Hungarianism I think, possibly more broadly European or Eastern European. Open concept kitchens are called "amerikai konyha" in Hungarian.
SpringFish
9d ago
only to the extent your life was actually improved by the use of the app
But the mainstream Western view is that any lifestyle is good, and that nobody should tell others how to live. The only values are about what not to do, eg. don't radicalize to far-right ideologies etc. And on that front, the West also wants to crack down on some things, with some overlap with China I guess, but it's mostly about the manosphere and right-wing disinformation etc. What you won't get is Western powers cracking down according to some trad conception of prosociality.
SpringFish
9d ago
It is analogous to the printing press. Apparently, already before the printing press, the number of books made using traditional methods was rising. To keep that curve going up according to its extrapolation, the invention of the printing press was a means. It was not the pure cause of the increase of book publishing. It wasn't like some mad scientist Gutenberg invented the printing press, poof, out of thin air and people were like, hmm nice, what shall we do with this, I guess we should print a lot of books. It was more like people wanted books and there was pressure to figure out how to produce them more efficiently. But it's also true that once the press was there, it created even more demand for writing.
Similarly with phones, the trend may have started earlier but smartphones, apps, web 2.0 etc were likely received so well because there was demand for it. It was already the case that people wanted solo entertainment, they wanted a family TV, instead of gossiping out there with the townfolk, so they could isolate with the nuclear family. Then wanted their own TV in their room, so they don't have to compromise with other family members. They wanted Internet access to go pursue special niche interests that fully disconnect them from the people living nearby or any kind of natural community. Phones allowed to take this with you, so you don't have to put up with people in your life who live around you any more. People already didn't care much about the random NPC's who appear in the background of their story as they commute etc. So the phone was a perfect addition to this.
SpringFish
9d ago
I don't quite understand how it has come to this. In Germany at least the far-right has a convenient theory that they get this as punishment for WWII. That the victorious Allies ensured that Germany, by becoming multicultural, will never re-develop that ethno-nationalistic, militaristic ethos they had pre-WWII. But Britain won WWII. France won WWII. Who pushed them to do this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_brainrot
It's a specific thing, not just brainrot that's Italian. It's these weird characters with Italian-sounding names and with Italian-language narration, which most of the audience doesn't understand but find funny. It's mostly to entertain kids. Same audience that Elsagate reached. Adults jumped on it ironically and it's just stupid all the way through. It's stupid to like it sincerely, stupid to like it ironically, stupid to get upset about it, stupid to even mention it. It just rots your brain upon contact in any way.
Regarding soda, I guess it's to distinguish it from "regular" soda, like Coke, Fanta, Sprite, which Americans call soda.
SpringFish
9d ago
I see. Small-town conservative America is quite foreign to me, as I'm in Europe. Here it's normal that people around 15-16 start to drink alcohol, have parties, and at 16-18 it's very normal to have relationships that include sex, with the more adventurous "cool" partyface types starting earlier.
SpringFish
9d ago
It is due to a hyperstitious cascade, in Scott's terms. Normal people have gotten the memo that this is not something to talk about in polite society.
SpringFish
9d ago
Where is that normie? Do teenagers not have sex in that normie world? Or are you claiming that they must be in the same year of school? Say, the guy is in the last year of high school, the other is one year lower but the guy is on the older end of his cohort and the girl is the younger end of her year. I think nobody bats an eye about this in real life.
SpringFish
9d ago
This is a very online thing, where people conflate the indeed very sharp and absolute threshold of 18 for porn, with the age of consent for sex that isn't recorded and distributed. In many European countries the age of consent is 14, in some it's 15 or 16. Of course there are other constraints like being in a teacher or similar role, in which case it will not be allowed.
Very online people are simply unable to tell the two apart because they rightfully know that in porn it would be the absolute toxic sludge and nuclear waste to come into contact with such material, and they generalize this to IRL relationships.
So, again, people are allowed to sexualize and have sexual relations with people above 14 in much of Europe. It may be disapproved socially by people in their lives, but it isn't disallowed per se.
SpringFish
9d ago
but they've been conditioned that this is what boys want
Conditioned by who? Is it conditioning or is it what boys actually want? If we assume that's what boys actually want (which I don't think is fully true, they also want emotional affection etc, of course from suitably attractive girls), does that mean they should get it? Are girls simply "conditioned" to do whatever, without their own agency? Only boys are supposed to have agency and overcome their nature? If girls are not able to deal with the incentive landscape provided by unconstrained gender-mixed interactions, parties, social media, intra-female competition arms races, then what?
There used to be a counter-force to that "conditioning", mainly provided by the father saying that the daughter is not allowed to wear such a skimpy outfit. It was then decided that this prevents female liberation and empowerment and is oppressive patriarchy and has to be abolished. Now what?
SpringFish
1mo ago
(Ah the good old days, when we were young...)
But yeah, before that, there was a wholesome-but-also-edgy, "Internet culture", 9gag, advice animals like Bad Luck Brian and Overly Attached Girlfriend. A couple of years before that, we had memes like the Chocolate Rain song, the Numa Numa guy, etc. It was definitely detached and ironic, in the South Park sense. The world wasn't necessarily more unified but the sort of people who hung out online were mostly middle-class young guys, gamers, nerds etc. with mostly compatible values and tastes.
I think the big break was the shift to phones and mobile internet. Before that, going online was an intentional thing you did mostly at home, when you had time, or on your laptop in college. Even if your phone had a camera, you had to transfer the pictures with a USB cable, then intentionally upload them on a social media site. This required intent and patience, it was friction. To discuss, you had to be told about some forums by (online) friends, you had to register on a php board, then you carefully curated your signature, your avatar, your nickname (obviously you had to use a cool pseudonym, your real world identity wasn't supposed to matter, you were supposed to leave all that behind at the doorstep). People got to know each other in those communities, people developed reputations behind the nicknames, they discussed off-topic issues in misc forum sections with the same set of people, instead of hopping between subreddits or being at the mercy of the algorithm regarding which random user's content you're going to see today.
After that, suddenly the internet escaped from the home, out into people's pockets in the streets, at parties, at festivals, everywhere, suddenly it wasn't just nerds, but people with dense social lives and the friction mostly disappeared. Uploading a picture was a single tap of the finger. Notifications started pouring in in all contexts. You were expected to know what's going on online, FOMO started etc.
In real life or online? To me it seems to be more of a hyper online / antiwork-style / redditor thing, but most people in real life just use it for daily tasks, a better google, or see it as some funny meme generator.
More options
Context Copy link