Somehow they seem to think that one small cigarette butt is so insignificant that it doesn’t matter despite the fact that they can see these small cigarette butts literally everywhere.

Anxiety / stress. Usually it relates to finances either directly or indirectly. I have enough savings to survive few years with zero income but having recently transitioned from employee to being self-employed, there’s quite a bit uncertainty about future. I’m not losing any significant amounts of money currently but I’m barely able to save anything either which makes me quite uncomfortable as someone who for the past 10 years has lived well below their means.

No they don’t, you only notice the ones that do. It’s called toupee fallacy.

is there anyway I could be more disruptive to the business model?

By not using the platform. You think you’re being clever but all you’re doing is making them more money.

Explanation is not excuse. It doesn’t matter wether they did a bad thing because they wanted to or their genes compelled them do. The outcome is still the same.

However, that doesn’t make it a bad idea. Accepting the fact that we live in a deterministic universe entirely dismantles the foundation from emotions like hate and replaces it with compassion. I don’t like every person I meet but I don’t hate anyone nor I blame anyone for what they are - they didn’t have a say in it.

I mean, there’s a good chance dogs can experience nostalgia. I’d say that it’s even likely. However, my point is that we can’t know for sure and I’d argue that we may not ever find out. Nostalgia is a subjective experience that appears in consciousness and just like consciousness itself, there zero evidence of it in the world outside of your own experience of it. How would you study something that can’t even be detected?

Nostalgia is entirely a subjective experience. Even if your dog would tell you that it does you’d still have to take their word for it.

If we have free will, then who or what is making those decisions and where is it located?

Humans do things for two reasons; either you have to or you want to. There’s no freedom in having to do something but you can’t choose the things you want either.

I genuinely believe that we live in a deterministic universe and that there is no “self” nor free will, so no, I don’t think there’s anything weird about that at all. Your view of the world is probably more accurate than the vast majority of population.

Subscribed and top 12 hours is what I’ve been going by for about a year now. After I’ve scrolled through that I switch to “all” from which I’ve blocked all the communities I’m not interested about.

One major issue with most online discussion about AI is that many people seem to view that term synonymous with LLMs - which it’s not. LLMs are AI systems but AI as a category is also so much more than that.

A major truck stop chain in Finland just recently started doing exactly that.

I’ve been using similar, but slighly different ones that I assume do the same thing. You can also copy the filter and just replace the filter word rather than including them all in one. Naturally here the instance name must be also changed to that of yours.

lemmy.world##div.post-listing:has(span:has-text("/trump/i"))

And for filtering comments:

lemmy.world##article.comment-node:has(div.comment-content:has(p:has-text(/trump/i)))

Yeah, and I think Buffalox agrees aswell. We were simply talking past each other. Even they used the term “depictions of CSAM” which is the same as the “simulated CSAM” term I was using myself.

For me, this was at no point about the morality of it. I’ve been strictly talking about the definition of terms. While laws often prohibit both CSAM and depictions of it, there’s still a difference between the two. CSAM is effectively synonymous with “evidence of crime” If it’s AI generated, photoshopped, drawn or what ever, then there has not been a crime and thus the content doesn’t count as evidence of it. Abuse material literally means what it says; it’s video/audio/picture content of the event itself. It’s illegal because producing it without harming children is impossible.

EDIT: It’s kind of same as calling AI generated pictures photographs. They’re not photographs. Photographs are taken with a camera. Even if the picture an AI generates is indistinguishable from a photograph it still doesn’t count as one because no cameras were involved.

Please tell me what own fact/definitions I’m spreading here. To me it seems like it’s you whose taking a self-explainatory, narrow definition and stretching the meaning of it.

I already told you that I’m not speaking from legal point of view. CSAM means a specific thing and AI generated content doesn’t fit under this definition. The only way to generate CSAM is by abusing children and taking pictures/videos of it. AI content doesn’t count any more than stick figure drawings do. The justice system may not differentiate the two but that is not what I’m talking about.

Being legally considered CSAM and actually being CSAM are two different things. I stand behind what I said which wasn’t legal advise. By definition it’s not abuse material because nobody has been abused.

It’s not legal advice I’m giving here.

What’s blatantly false about what I said?