Hayao Miyasaki is the co-founder of Studio Ghibli, a Japanese animation studio known worldwide for their stunning, emotional, beautiful stories and movies. At the core of Studio Ghibli’s work is a deep engagement with questions of humanity. About what it means to be a human, about how to care for one another and the world […]
I could go out and kill a person for supporting AI IP theft. I won’t because it goes against my moral code.
just goes to prove my theory that anyone that supports this kind of theft is not only devoid of any morals, but lacks the integrity expected of a contributing adult.
If people only did what they should, then many acceptable actions would not get done.
Art & leisure or posting here are optional: there’s no should there.
It is a fallacy of modal logic to claim an action that is not one that should be done is an action that should not be done.
There’s no reason you should post here, yet you did.
Does that mean you’re “devoid of any morals” & “lack the integrity expected of a contributing adult”?
Imitation & derivative works hardly rise to anything worth fussing over & losing total perspective.
If you pay attention, all human creativity is derivative, nothing is truly original.
Works build on & reference each other.
Techniques get refined.
It’s why we have genres.
From the Epic of Gilgamesh & ancient mythology to modern storytelling, or the development of perspective in graphical works across time, there’s a clear process of imitation & development across all of it.
You know, I didn’t actually read your comment, but I glanced through enough to know you’re just making excuses for shitty behavior due to a lack of integrity.
the way it was written follows a pretty well known pattern, and I’m almost positive it was mostly written by an LLM.
sad really, people put effort into their responses on here and people who use LLMs just come along with some generated garbage and shit all over the platform.
more images of text
alt text that misleads people with accessibility needs
So just to be clear
false “IP theft” (derivative works in a similar style aren’t theft) that harms no one violates your moral code
discrimination that objectively disadvantages the disabled is fine to you.
Much can be understood about someone’s sense of morality in their actions (eligible for moral consideration) toward the disadvantaged.
Does that person treat others as that person would want to be treated by them?
Do they prioritize a cause that doesn’t address a credible harm over their easily addressable actions that do cause credible harm?
Your moral code & moral claims seem confused & mistaken.
It’s funny the largely anti-capitalist crowd doesn’t care about intellectual property until their favorite bogeyman shows up.
Then they suddenly “care”: whatever it takes to take down AI, right?
Even if it takes us down with it.
I don’t like weak arguments that try to manipulate our emotions with our favorite targets of animus, nebulous claims of threats to cherished values, misuse of the word fascism.
The person’s liberty to express themselves (even in ways we dislike with technology we dislike) is more important than an argument that rings false.
you threw in a red herring
Your moral hypocrisy?
The coherence of your “moral code”?
just to make personal attacks against me
Does it suck to be judged for the actions you’ve demonstrated here?
I’m also not here contemplating killing someone over dubious theft (of expressions!): that was all you.
when you are challenged you claim abelism
Also, whenever I come across it & feel moved: the casual inconsiderateness of online images of text is noticeable & easy to call out.
Instead of distracting nonsense, turning that useless online outrage & public shame toward something concrete we ourselves can address today (like web accessibility) might do some tangible good for a change.
Sustained long enough, it might catch on & make us more considerate in that 1 small yet noticeable way.
it’s really pathetic and gives differently-abled people a bad name. you should be ashamed of yourself
Does it?
Someone here should be ashamed.
If we’re done getting distracted with ourselves, the point remains that the article is a manipulative argument lacking substance.
just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
I could go out and kill a person for supporting AI IP theft. I won’t because it goes against my moral code.
just goes to prove my theory that anyone that supports this kind of theft is not only devoid of any morals, but lacks the integrity expected of a contributing adult.
If people only did what they should, then many acceptable actions would not get done. Art & leisure or posting here are optional: there’s no should there. It is a fallacy of modal logic to claim an action that is not one that should be done is an action that should not be done.
There’s no reason you should post here, yet you did. Does that mean you’re “devoid of any morals” & “lack the integrity expected of a contributing adult”?
Imitation & derivative works hardly rise to anything worth fussing over & losing total perspective. If you pay attention, all human creativity is derivative, nothing is truly original. Works build on & reference each other. Techniques get refined. It’s why we have genres. From the Epic of Gilgamesh & ancient mythology to modern storytelling, or the development of perspective in graphical works across time, there’s a clear process of imitation & development across all of it.
You know, I didn’t actually read your comment, but I glanced through enough to know you’re just making excuses for shitty behavior due to a lack of integrity.
the way it was written follows a pretty well known pattern, and I’m almost positive it was mostly written by an LLM.
sad really, people put effort into their responses on here and people who use LLMs just come along with some generated garbage and shit all over the platform.
Well, you’re wrong.
And you’re ableist for that. Good job.
So just to be clear
Much can be understood about someone’s sense of morality in their actions (eligible for moral consideration) toward the disadvantaged. Does that person treat others as that person would want to be treated by them? Do they prioritize a cause that doesn’t address a credible harm over their easily addressable actions that do cause credible harm?
Your moral code & moral claims seem confused & mistaken.
you’re a bad troll.
first of all, the entire thread was about AI IP theft. you threw in a red herring just to make personal attacks against me as being abelist.
in-fact, from what I’ve seen in your comment history, when you are challenged you claim abelism.
it’s really pathetic and gives differently-abled people a bad name. you should be ashamed of yourself, but we all know trolls feed off of the shame.
Haters gonna hate.
Answered: that part you didn’t read.
It’s funny the largely anti-capitalist crowd doesn’t care about intellectual property until their favorite bogeyman shows up. Then they suddenly “care”: whatever it takes to take down AI, right? Even if it takes us down with it.
I don’t like weak arguments that try to manipulate our emotions with our favorite targets of animus, nebulous claims of threats to cherished values, misuse of the word fascism. The person’s liberty to express themselves (even in ways we dislike with technology we dislike) is more important than an argument that rings false.
Your moral hypocrisy? The coherence of your “moral code”?
Does it suck to be judged for the actions you’ve demonstrated here?
I’m also not here contemplating killing someone over dubious theft (of expressions!): that was all you.
Also, whenever I come across it & feel moved: the casual inconsiderateness of online images of text is noticeable & easy to call out. Instead of distracting nonsense, turning that useless online outrage & public shame toward something concrete we ourselves can address today (like web accessibility) might do some tangible good for a change. Sustained long enough, it might catch on & make us more considerate in that 1 small yet noticeable way.
Does it? Someone here should be ashamed.
If we’re done getting distracted with ourselves, the point remains that the article is a manipulative argument lacking substance.