I guess my question is, why would anyone continue to "consume" -- or create -- real csam? If fake and real are both illegal, but one involves minimal risk and 0 children, the only reason to create real csam is for the cruelty -- and while I'm sure there's a market for that, it's got to be a much smaller market. My guess is the vast majority of "consumers" of this content would opt for the fake stuff if it took some of the risk off the table.

I can't imagine a world where we didn't ban ai generated csam, like, imagine being a politician and explaining that policy to your constituents. It's just not happening. And i get the core point of that kind of legislation -- the whole concept of csam needs the aura of prosecution to keep it from being normalized -- and normalization would embolden worse crimes. But imagine if ai made real csam too much trouble to produce.

AI generated csam could put real csam out of business. If possession of fake csam had a lesser penalty than the real thing, the real stuff would be much harder to share, much less monetize. I don't think we have the data to confirm this but my guess is that most pedophiles aren't sociopaths and recognize their desires are wrong, and if you gave them a way to deal with it that didn't actually hurt chicken, that would be huge. And you could seriously throw the book at anyone still going after the real thing when ai content exists.

Obviously that was supposed to be children not chicken but my phone preferred chicken and I'm leaving it.

How long does it take to fill that storage?

I get what you're saying, but it honestly sounds like kool aid drinking. "Surge" vs "dynamic" might be different in terms of back end calculation, but the external appearance is the same.

Again, you have to remember that prices are still maxed out. Think about it this way: if you normally wear 2000 calories a day, and every now and then you have an extra donut or burger and that puts you at 2500, that's only balanced if, on other days, you have only 1500 calories. If the only exceptions are in the "plus" direction, the average is up.

Dynamic pricing is done in retail already and no one bats an eye at it.

Don't mistake prior not knowing about it for people saying they think it's ok. If this is happening in retail, and people knew, they wouldn't be happy.

Surge pricing is toxic and needs to stop.

ITT: people who didn't click the link. It's in like the very first sentence.

I had no idea mega did that, that's awesome. The whole idea that the server doesn't have the key, like -- it's so simple, but it never occurred to me. Why would the server ever need to decrypt it?

This shit is wrinkling my brain.

And I'm even more mad at every cloud provider. Why you decrypting my shit, Google?

So I guess the question is, for your site idea, where does the encryption start? Like, you want the text on the page and the form data encrypted, but, is the text on the form's submit button encrypted? If it is, your user has to be a developer to some extent, or you needs to build like a WordPress style wysiwyg editor that also encrypts everything -- and, like, that's kinda cool, but actually writing that code sounds like torture. I'd rather spend all that development time giving myself papercuts and squirting lemon juice into them.

So an encryption "barrier" has to exist. The Mega server doesn't decrypt your file, but it knows that it's getting a file of some kind for you, and it knows the shape of the data. It's not completely ignorant -- and, like the WordPress problem above, you could prevent that -- keep the server from even knowing what it's doing -- again, kinda cool, but it sounds like torture to actually write.

So the question is, where are you putting that barrier? It seems like, wherever that barrier is, is also how deep a non-developer user can get into using it. To put that another easy: the more of the site's content that's encrypted, the more development skills the user has to have.

Or I'm just misunderstanding your project entirely, which I will attribute to the fact that it's 1am.

Yeah I'm kind of dumb like that. But honestly I don't actually do it for them -- I do it for noobs. Like, there's a long way for that person to go before my input will be helpful -- but there are young people who have heard those arguments and may not have a compelling response -- so hopefully my post will help.

There are a couple tiny issues I have with it that drive me nuts (namely: 1 how they implement the CSS blur filter sucks and 2 the fact that they haven't implemented page transitions even though I think it was their idea to start with (?))

But other than those things, I certainly don't feel like I'm missing anything by ditching Google.

Oh I pirate the shit out of everything -- and partly it's a boycott, but I think mostly it's the convenience. "Owning" things and enjoying them on my terms (no Internet? No problem) is just better than subscriptions.

And I block ads, 100% for sure. I would literally give up most of the Internet rather than subject myself to ads -- I'm "on the spectrum" and I have a very hard time with overstimulation and distraction, so ads substantially interrupt my ability to read (which I already have trouble with).

Like -- I love lemmy and everything, but I'm here because Reddit disabled the ad-free app I used to use. I was a daily reddit user for like 13 years. if I could still use Relay, my ethical resolve against their anti-user practices, and my personal commitment to foss, probably wouldn't have held up.

My feeling is, if I behave in a way that's conducive with good mental health and life satisfaction, and what I do is also a political statement, then the universe is in harmony.

It's really just the "voting with your wallet' perspective I mean to illuminate and undercut -- it's a very tempting idea, but I would rather we (as a resistance movement) remain sane and comfortable than ascetic and underengaged.

You seem very upset about this. I doubt this will help since it doesn't seem like your reasoning is influenced by logic, but, the fact that there are fraudulent doctors and diagnoses doesn't mean science isn't real.

You don't have to crack it to make it but you have to crack it to determine whether you've made it. That's kinda the trick of the early AI hype, notably that NYT article that fed Chat GPT some simple sci fi, ai-coming-to-life prompts and it generated replies based on its training data - or, if you believe the nyt author, it came to life.

I think what you're saying is a kind of "can't define it but I know it when I see it" idea, and that's valid, for sure. I think you're right that we don't need to understand it to make it - I guess what I was trying to say was, if it's so complex that we can't understand it in ourselves, I doubt we're going to be able to develop the complexity required to make it.

And I don't think that the inability to know what has happened in an AI training algorithm is evidence that we can create a sentient being.

That said, our understanding of consciousness is so nascient that we might just be so wrong about it that we're looking in the wrong place, or for the wrong thing.

We may understand it so badly that the truth is the opposite of what I'm saying : people have said ("people have said" is a super red flag, but I mean spiritualists and crackpots, my favorite being the person who wrote The Secret Life of Plants) that consciousness is all around us, that every organized matter has consciousness. Trees, for example - but not just trees, also the parts of a tree; a branch, a leaf; a whole tree may have a separate consciousness from its leaves - or, and this is what always blows my mind: every cell in the tree except one. And every cell in the tree except two, and then every cell in the tree except a different two. And so on. With no way to communicate with them, how would a tree be aware of the consciousness of it's leaves?

How could we possibly know if our liver is conscious? Or our countertop, or the grass in the park nearby?

While that's obviously just thought experiment bullshit, my point is, we don't know fucking anything. So maybe we created it already. Maybe we will create it but we will never be able to know whether we've created it.

Donkey Kong wishes! No, Dead Kennedys

It's not just about Palestinian terrorists. It's about us.

I've been on the "can people stop being assholes to Palestinians" team for many years - but this recent hamas attack was disgusting - they've always been disgusting but this was recent. I still supported Palestinians - but even I took a step back and was like, uhhhhh

Israel's response has been worse. As a result, we're all back to fully supporting Palestine. For as long as Israel is seen as the victim, they'll have the world's support; but if they start killing hundreds of innocents to get one person - like, did they give this any thought at all?