where anyone thinks it’s ok or normal to recommend suicide to people
Except that’s already happening even without it being normalized, there have always been assholes that are gonna tell people to kill themselves, especially if they’ve never seen the person they’re talking to before. I don’t see how this is any different.
Literally the whole thing would not have happened without the policy.
It also wouldn’t have happened if a fucked up system wasn’t withholding actual, reasonable alternatives that the person was clearly asking for. That’s my point. Let’s fix the actual problems, rather than try to silence the symptoms.
…and did you notice how everyone was outraged by that? That incident was not an issue with assisted suicide being available, that was an issue with fucked up systems withholding existing alternatives and a tone-deaf case worker (who is not a doctor) handling impersonal communications. Maybe it’s also an issue with this kind of thing being able to be decided by a government worker instead of medical and psychological professionals. But definitely nothing about this would have been made better by assisted suicide not being generally available for people who legitimately want it, except the actual problem wouldn’t have been put into the spotlight like this.
I don’t want to create a future where, “I’ve tried everything I can to fix myself and I still feel like shit,” is met with a polite and friendly, “Oh, well have you considered killing yourself?”
Are you for real? This kind of thing is a last resort that nobody is going to just outright suggest unprompted to a suffering person, unless that person asks for it themselves. No matter how “normalized” suicide might become, it’s never gonna be something doctors will want to recommend. That’s just… Why would you even think that’s what’s gonna happen
I was thinking of an approach based on cryptographic signatures. If all images that come from a certain AI model are signed with a digital certificate, you can tamper with metadata all you want, you’re not gonna be able to produce the correct signature to add to an image unless you have access to the certificate’s private key. This technology has been around for ages and is used in every web browser and would be pretty simple to implement.
The only weak point with this approach would be that it relies on the private key not being publicly accessible, which makes this a lot harder or maybe even impossible to implement for open source models that anyone can run on their own hardware. But then again, at least for what we’re talking about here, the goal wouldn’t need to be a system covering every model, just one that makes at least a couple models safe to use for this specific purpose.
I guess the more practical question is whether this would be helpful for any other use case. Because if not, I hardly doubt it’s gonna be implemented. Nobody is gonna want the PR nightmare of building a feature with no other purpose than to help pedophiles generate stuff to get off to “safely”, no matter how well intentioned
Yeah but the point is you can’t easily add it to any picture you want (if it’s implemented well), thus providing a way to prove that the pictures were created using AI and no harm has been done to children in their creation. It would be a valid solution to the “easy to hide actual CSAM between AI generated pictures” problem.
Yup, you got it. Even the solution to your confusion. Good encryption algorithms are set up so that even the smallest possible change in the input (a single flipped bit) will produce a completely different result. So yeah, if you have just a small set of exact possible messages that could be sent, you can find out which one it was by encrypting it yourself and comparing your result to what was sent. But there is a super easy protection against this - just add some random data to the end of the message before encrypting it. The more, the harder it will be to crack.
Yeah, but by generating with AI you’re incentivized to skip that initial research stage into your own code base, leading you to completely miss opportunities for consolidation or reuse
I mean… Yes? If there’s a way to do something without having to take my hands off the steering wheel I’ll use that
At the danger of being whooshed here - with Goat simulator specifically, I think it’s pretty obvious that the game is overall not meant to be taken seriously, including the title.
I have definitely noticed it. Clutch power and stability is still great as ever, but ugly mold marks, color mismatches, scratches on larger transparent pieces out of the box, low quality of prints on pieces and misprints in instructions are all things that have noticeably increased for me over the last years.
You’re right that words can be coined and their usage changed, but you seem to be misinformed about how that happens. You just deciding we’re gonna do it this way now in a random thread on lemmy is not gonna cut it, sorry
This is about language, not geology. Doesn’t really matter how it came to be that way, North and South America are effectively treated as separate continents and very rarely referred to as a whole, and you saying “but actually” doesn’t change that.
Tf are you talking about, unless being gay involves raping men, being pedo also doesn’t involve raping children. Even as a cishet non-pedo you will often encounter situations where acting on some attraction you feel would be anywhere from morally questionable to straight up illegal, and most of us manage to deal with that just fine. Of course that’s going to be tougher for someone whose entire experience consists of that, rather than just part of it, but nothing about being pedo forces you to become a child-raping piece of shit.
Of course psychiatric care is important, but the point the other commenter was making is that it’s currently impossible to change anyone’s attraction, so it’s not a pathology that can be “cured” in this way. Any psychiatric care currently has to be aimed at helping people deal with being pedo without acting on it and also not developing any other psychological afflictions because of suppressing their attraction. Trying to “cure” the attraction itself would indeed be akin to gay conversion therapy: there’s no scientific evidence it works, and it’s going to do more harm than good.
Just gonna leave this here: The coming war on general computation
That specifically excludes accounts with YouTube channels though, if I remember correctly
What are you even talking about. The people on beehaw are not trying to pretend that the internet as such is nice. They are creating a community with a specific code of conduct, and that is just as real as any other place on the internet. You can still talk about shitty stuff, and you can have dissent, conflict and discussion on there, nobody pretends that that all doesn’t exist. The only requirement is that you approach with respect and well-meaning by default for everyone around, there’s nothing else to it. On the contrary, I feel like people who don’t want to follow these rules are the ones pretending - pretending that they’re not interacting with real people, that anything they say doesn’t affect others.
You seem to be under the impression that any “nice” space must be fake, because, I don’t know, people are inherently not nice, or something, and thus everyone must be just pretending? That’s a pretty sad way to view the world, and absolutely not true in my experience. I know plenty of great places and communities made of people that just genuinely want the best for others by default, both online and offline, and it takes no pretending, it only takes a bit of caution to keep the very few people out that are not there to participate constructively and can’t or don’t want to clear the pretty low bar of respect and well-meaning.
Not really self-hosted in the typical sense, but Obsidian with the Tasks and/or Kanban plugin synced through a (self-hosted) solution of your choice could work?
There’s no irony here, that’s exactly how it’s supposed to work. My point is not that every space on the internet needs to be as protected as beehaw. My point is that it’s valid for people to create and seek out spaces like beehaw if they feel like it, and to be protective of them, which you didn’t seem to understand. But of course it’s just as valid to not need that and engage in the kind of argument we’re having here right now, because different places can have different rules, and that’s totally fine, as long as you respect the rules of whatever place you interact with.
Big fat nope on that one. This is exactly what the GDPR is about. I’m giving you my data for a specific purpose, and unless I tell you otherwise, you have no fucking business using that data for anything else. Gonna be interesting to see how this one plays out in the EU.