3 ms·

Pros: none Content label doesn't transform the content. It just provides a false sense of category. I still have to think critically whether there is a label

by Yaqub_W 2mo ago

Pros: none Content label doesn't transform the content. It just provides a false sense of category. I still have to think critically whether there is a label or not. Cons: New ways for sociopaths for corruption, embezzlement and censorship. That is my point. This idea that legislation has no downsides is extremely naive and borderline retarded. Look at proposed legislation from the point of someone who wants to destroy everything. Does it provide a path to that goal? Is the risk worth it? Every government grows over time and produces more and more suffering while consuming more and more wealth. I recommend reading The Gulag Archipelago. Your thinking seems to be dangerously naive to you and people around you.

dathinab 2mo ago
> Pros: none > Cons: New ways for sociopaths for corruption, embezzlement and censorship. bot points are just plain wrong, to a point where I'm wondering if you intentionally pretend to be ignorant because it's beyond understanding how anyone can end up with both points there is no censorship in this law, if people don't want to see AI content and as such don't see your content _this is free market selection working as it should, not censorship_, and if people are fine with AI generated content then that is also market selection working as it should. But it gives people a choice. > That is my point. your only point is saying bad bad bad without giving any reasoning of how you even ended up at points multiple levels detached from the intend of the law where does the censorship come from?, because this laws isn't doing censorship where does the corruption and embezzlement come from? because that argument seem even more detached from reality pros none? when there is currently a sever risk to democracies based on deep fake propaganda this law would at least reduce, this is clearly not none. > has no downsides no one said there are no downsides, you are putting words in other peoples mouths. But this law is basically applying content ingredient laws from e.g. food to AI generated content in a comparatively limited/mundane form. > Your thinking seems to be dangerously naive to you and people around you. Then please reason and not throw jumps to conclusions without reasoning at people and then complain that people don't reason with you and if they do just repeat the same jumps without any reasoning and indirectly tell people they are retarded or think dangerously while also using dishonest argumentative practices like taking their "it seems a good idea" and pretending they said "it has no downsides".

by Yaqub_W 2mo ago

dathinab 2mo ago

> Pros: none > Cons: New ways for sociopaths for corruption, embezzlement and censorship. bot points are just plain wrong, to a point where I'm wondering if you intentionally pretend to be ignorant because it's beyond understanding how anyone can end up with both points there is no censorship in this law, if people don't want to see AI content and as such don't see your content _this is free market selection working as it should, not censorship_, and if people are fine with AI generated content then that is also market selection working as it should. But it gives people a choice. > That is my point. your only point is saying bad bad bad without giving any reasoning of how you even ended up at points multiple levels detached from the intend of the law where does the censorship come from?, because this laws isn't doing censorship where does the corruption and embezzlement come from? because that argument seem even more detached from reality pros none? when there is currently a sever risk to democracies based on deep fake propaganda this law would at least reduce, this is clearly not none. > has no downsides no one said there are no downsides, you are putting words in other peoples mouths. But this law is basically applying content ingredient laws from e.g. food to AI generated content in a comparatively limited/mundane form. > Your thinking seems to be dangerously naive to you and people around you. Then please reason and not throw jumps to conclusions without reasoning at people and then complain that people don't reason with you and if they do just repeat the same jumps without any reasoning and indirectly tell people they are retarded or think dangerously while also using dishonest argumentative practices like taking their "it seems a good idea" and pretending they said "it has no downsides".