Once again, I am tapping the sign for people to go watch the two hour video by Shaun on the subject.

The moral of Harry Potter is that the status quo is correct and should never be questioned, and nobody should ever try to change anything.

Harry doesn’t defeat Voldemort or change any of the issues inherent in the bumbling bureaucracy of the wizard world. Voldemort kills himself on a magic technicality, Harry becomes a magic cop and helps to ensure that magic is never used to help the undesirables of society (Muggles), and Hermione is ridiculed for being a girl with blue hair and pronouns who tried to end the chattel slavery system before she “grew up” and became a much more sensible person who realized that the slaves actually want to be oppressed, and it’s for their own good.

You can see Rowling’s morality change practically in real-time as the books go on, from criticizing the system to defending it as she began to benefit from it as her wealth grew. And underneath it all, you can see her discriminatory opinions of people. That was always there. When she wants you to hate a woman, she makes them fat or gives them masculine features. If I have to read the phrase “mannish hands” one more time, I might vomit.

Didn’t it also have something to do with a brand deal? Like the suit got extra funding for the movie by making a deal with Duracell to have their batteries in the movie or something.

Welcome to the hypocritical world of Puritan culture.

Some of the earliest British settlers in the US were so extremist that the Church of England kicked them out after they tried to assassinate the king and replace him with a puppet of their own to force their beliefs on the rest of the country.

It was partly these crazies that started the whole sex and bodies=bad and shameful thing in the US that advertisers still believe in today. And swearing is yet another of those weird things. But sex sells, so it’s okay to imply it as long as it’s selling a product and no other time.

I think you’re right that they were Apple only for a few years at least.

This is what Tumblr did too after they banned porn. It couldn’t tell the difference between the Sahara Desert and boobs.

Affinity is also on Windows - at least Designer is. I’ve been using it for a couple of years now.

That’s what I was thinking. Deep fakes have existed since photo manipulation was invented, and Adobe hasn’t cared one iota about it before. The only reason I can see for them to care now is if they think they can get in legal trouble for what people create with their products.

That’s what I was thinking. Apart from the porn locked up in the Disney vault, big companies aren’t in the business of making porn. And the companies that do aren’t going to be interested in deep fakes. The people who are using Photoshop to create porn are small fries to Adobe. Deep fake porn has been around as long as photo manipulation has, and Adobe hasn’t cared before.

Bearing that in mind, I don’t think this policy has anything to do with AI deep fakes or porn. I think it’s more likely to be some new revenue source, like farming data for LLM training or something. They could go the Tumblr route and use AI to censor content, but considering Tumblr couldn’t tell the difference between the Sahara Desert and boobs, I think that’s one fuck up with a major company away from being litigation hell. The only reason that I think would make sense for Adobe to do this because of deep fakes is if they believe that governments are going to start holding them liable for the content people make with their products.

What do you mean by “at the corporate/software level”? What corporations are drawing furry porn?

They’re not threatened by its potential. They, like artists, are threatened by management who think that LLMs are good enough today to replace part or all of their staff.

There was a story from earlier this year of a company that owns 12-15 different gaming news outlets who fired about 80% of their writing staff and journalists - replacing 100% of their staff at the majority of the outlets with LLMs and leaving a skeleton crew at the rest.

What you’re seeing isn’t some slant trying to discredit LLMs. It’s the results of management who are using them wrong.

Yet another case of the medical industry not caring one iota about women and women’s ability to identify what is going on with their own bodies. The number of times I’ve heard of doctors dismissing women’s pain and issues makes me want to scream.

My favorite part about that is, if we have to fact-check its answers with a secondary source, why wouldn’t we just skip the AI and go to the other source first?

Not that the people making this stuff nor the people who believe them in blindly trusting its answers think of that, of course.

It’s conjecture based on evidence from the way previous companies have handled AI data as well as the way Microsoft themselves generally handle things.

I’d rather prepare for the corporate greed and be pleasantly surprised than be disappointed when Microsoft does something that will negatively impact their userbase in the name of profits again (or MAUs or whatever else looks good on the quarterly report).

Gods, I hope you’re right. I hope it’s so bad that it scares every other AI company. Because they get away with this kind of crap all the time with no repercussions, since your average person doesn’t have the money to bring them to court over it.

The same could be said about Windows 11 since it demands a TPM chip. Not that I’m complaining, since all I had to do was disable the chip to keep 11 away for good.

It’ll be opt-out with the setting in some obscure and hard to find menu, just like every other AI program. And that’s if they’re required to even allow you to opt out.

Already a lot of stuff is becoming one harddrive failure away from being lost forever. Companies don’t care about preserving content, so it’s largely up to random people happening to have saved a copy of something for it to still exist at all.

For some real-world examples of this issue, you can look at how the only reason we have any of the early BBC news reels and TV shows is because of copies recorded by people on their TVs. The BBC reused the tapes that they recorded on for new programming to save money on buying tapes. When they started to think about the preservation of news and shows like Dr. Who, they had to turn to the general public and ask them to donate any recordings that they might have made.

It’s estimated that more than 50% of all video games are lost forever because companies didn’t care to save a master copy, and this has already come back to bite some of these companies in the ass with the recent trend of remakes and remasters. There was a recent remake of one of the GTA games from the early 2000s that was very poorly received, and it turned out that the company who worked on it only had the mobile phone port of the game to work with because Rockstar hadn’t bothered to keep a master copy of the game. There was another recent remake of a game that was very obviously done using a pirated copy of the game as the source, because they hadn’t even bothered to remove the cracker’s logo from the game.

With examples like that and Sony recently removing thousands of people’s access to music and movies that they bought on basically a whim, it’s pretty clear that preservation efforts will be done in spite of companies rather than helped by them. And so that means copies of things will be one random harddrive failure of some single person on the internet away from disappearing forever.

How about that local generic sports team? They sure are doing good and/or bad.

How many fingers am I holding up? If your answer is 6 or more, I have bad news for you and your data set.