FfaerieOxide

I meant legal as in easy to acquire the means.

Do you live a place where that describes a gun?

What I don’t understand is how many people condemn all of generative AI. For me the issue seems to be one of consent and compensation, and ultimately of capitalism.

Would you be okay with generative AI whose training data was vetted to be acquired consentually?

Not if it was used to undercut human artists' livelihoods.

Hypothetical future where everybody gets UBI and/or AI becomes sentient and able to unionize, maybe we look back at this again.

I don't think AI has a soul but there no reason it couldn't be given one.

I'm not the one who claimed they were off topic. I'm the one who was right about generative " art " being a god-damn scam. Easy mistake to make I suppose.

So you're into the other tech scam too, are ya?

Fancy that.

There wouldn't be much debate about it if it was, would there?

Sure there can be. People debate crypto being good and that's roundly recognized as ecocide. People "debate" who counts as people all the time. People can be wrong and loud.

Alright, in future I will try to remember to immediately reject any metaphors you bring into play rather than attempt to engage with them.

Not saying you have to do that, but if you don't it's rather untoward to bring it up later as though it's a problem.

Great, now we just need to establish whether AI art is "bad for society"

That seems fairly evident

You're the one who brought fast food into this.

You were fine engaging fastfood until I pointed out it, like AI " art " was terrible. Only then did you deride the metaphor as off topic.

Should we also have a single wise man to decide which is which?

Well we certainly shouldn't have violence for violence, as is the Rule of Beasts.

Things that are bad for society should be suppressed and things which are good for society should be promoted. That would seem to be the point of a society.

Further, I notice a pastern in your replies of bringing up metaphor then rejecting the very metaphor as off topic or irrelevant when it is engaged to it's logical conclusion.

No accusing you of engaging in bad faith or anything, but it smells (sorry, metaphor again) less-than-fresh.

Fast food provides a new option.

Fast food damages the health of society and impoverishes communities.

I just notice alot of cheerleaders for this " art " form come from a place of vindictiveness against people with artistic talent and their positions are rooted more in a desire to see people the view as gatekeepers receive comeuppance than an honest defense of an ostensive tool.

It can't really be both.

It totally can. Take the example of fast food. Simultaneously a threat to traditional cooking and terrible.

This isn’t a poisonous gas we’re talking about. Air is 78% nitrogen

Apparently it's deadly enough to kill at least 1 guy. You also can't see it.

I would say the risk of a gas spreading and affecting more than an intended target is greater than the risk someone will accidentally stab themselves in the head.

You raise a good point about fluids, but I think the danger from that can be mitigated with protective clothing to a greater degree than the next safest (for the administrator) option of a bullet can have its inherent danger of exploding at or near the wrong place be mitigated.

If euthanasia was legal, should prisoners be given the option?

I have no idea how to square the inherent coercion of either capitalism or incarceration (or often both) affecting the choice but everyone has the right to end their own existence whenever they want.