What would be a he issue? If it can output human languages it cal also output machine-readable instructions

Countless dead are ok, but they dear the line at Rovlox

If you act like a Nazi, you're a Nazi.

Bro just wanted to look smart.

Do protests? Oh good here I thought they were doing absolutely nothing.

You you're literally voluntarily choosing ignorance.

It you haven't seen them you need to start looking because it's not even that hard.

Lmao. I think Monsanto is pouring money into Lemmy because holy shit there are some brown noses bootlickers defending daddy Monsanto.

That point is now lmao

Don't worry I had AI TL&DR it for you:

Summary of "The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to Criticizing AI"

Cory Doctorow distinguishes between centaurs (humans assisted by machines) and reverse-centaurs (humans serving as appendages to machines). His core thesis: AI tools are marketed as centaur-making devices but deployed to create reverse-centaurs—workers subjected to algorithmic control and expected to catch machine errors while being blamed for failures.

The AI bubble exists primarily to maintain growth stock valuations. Once tech monopolies dominate their sectors, they face market reclassification from "growth" to "mature" stocks, triggering massive valuation drops. AI hype keeps investors convinced of continued expansion potential.

AI's actual business model: Replace high-wage workers (coders, radiologists, illustrators) with AI systems that cannot actually perform those jobs, while retaining skeleton crews as "accountability sinks"—humans blamed when AI fails. This strategy reduces payroll while maintaining superficial human oversight.

Why expanding copyright won't help creators: Despite 50 years of copyright expansion, creative workers earn less both absolutely and proportionally while media conglomerates profit enormously. New training-related copyrights would simply become contractual obligations to employers, not worker protections.

The effective counter-strategy: The U.S. Copyright Office's position that AI-generated works cannot receive copyright protection undermines corporate incentives to replace human creators entirely. Combined with sectoral bargaining rights (allowing industry-wide worker negotiations), this creates material resistance to worker displacement.

On AI art specifically: Generative systems produce "eerie" outputs—superficially competent but communicatively hollow. They cannot transfer the "numinous, irreducible feeling" that defines art because they possess no intentionality beyond statistical word/pixel prediction.

The bubble will collapse, leaving behind useful commodity tools (transcription, image processing) while eliminating economically unsustainable foundation models. Effective criticism should target AI's material drivers—the growth-stock imperative and labor displacement economics—not peripheral harms like deepfakes or "AI safety" concerns about sentience.

You want facts? on Lemmy? Gtfo

I was thinking the same. The only way this relates to sovereignity is in how Microsoft is trying to buy it.

She was worse option than the rapist bro. That's what the polls showed. Just get over it and face reality. Your lords don't care about you.

Lmao you think this is going to stop the king? Wait until you have the ICEtapo dragging you off the offices.

In pretty sure the rest of the world hates all of Russia. Ffs lemmoids call Russians 'orcs' and want to use nukes.

They won't. The ICC is the US's attack dog. They had their nuts cut from the beginning, anyone in the US us essentially immune.

No, it's only on the other direction of extremism.

No thanks. In trying to get rid of fascists and war criminals, not looking to become one of them .

You're right. LOSING to a known rapist is even worse.

Unless you're paying me for that, I don't give a fuck.