- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Gavin Newsom has banned political ’memes’ in California.
Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:53 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I give objective analysis, not subjective commentary
Hilarious.
1
Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
I've said it before. A complete and utter lack of self-awareness is the hallmark of a marxist democrat.
Good thing those words don't apply to me.
I rest my case.
Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:54 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
A normal person could obviously sue for defamation. But what about a politician? Its sort of grey to me.
Well the fact that you're relying on machines to create the work also gets into a really metaphysical discussion on what is speech.
Clearly a tactile work created fully by human mind/hands is their own.
Does a human giving a prompt for machine learning to spit out token-based responses, created by the work of other humans, attach as speech by the human giving prompts? Or the humans who created the underlying speech used to mold the AI version? You can get into this sort of discussion for all the curated parts (the video, speech, etc.) of the output.
It's going to take a LONG time for society/courts to figure this out.
Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:55 am to SlowFlowPro
Are you saying the use of AI to generate words you type out in a parody might not be covered under the 1A?
If you watch the video Newsome was upset at Elon over (which I linked above) it's clear someone had to type out what the AI said. That is speech.
I would bet that AI will cover this in their licensing rights stating that use of the AI is not to be used to deceive but parody in all forms is still protected under the Hustler v Falwell (1983) ruling I posted earlier.
If you watch the video Newsome was upset at Elon over (which I linked above) it's clear someone had to type out what the AI said. That is speech.
I would bet that AI will cover this in their licensing rights stating that use of the AI is not to be used to deceive but parody in all forms is still protected under the Hustler v Falwell (1983) ruling I posted earlier.
Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:55 am to the808bass
quote:
I give objective analysis, not subjective commentary
Hilarious.
Theres a large gulf between his perception of objectivity and reality.
Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:56 am to RogerTheShrubber
It is unsurprising and explanatory all at the same time.
Posted on 9/18/24 at 8:59 am to stout
quote:
Are you saying the use of AI to generate words you type out in a parody might not be covered under the 1A?
I'm saying we don't know, right now.
quote:
it's clear someone had to type out what the AI said. That is speech.
What they typed is their speech.
What was created may not be.
quote:
I would bet that AI will cover this in their licensing rights stating that use of the AI is not to be used to deceive but parody in all forms is still protected under the Hustler v Falwell (1983) ruling I posted earlier.
It's very possible, but AI-produced content may not get the same protections as normal speech, which would increase the chance that case would not apply.
Also, parody is only one subset.
What about deep fakes that aren't meant for comedy and only solely deception? Biden or Trump saying the N-word, for example.
Posted on 9/18/24 at 9:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Biden saying the N-word
Don’t need to deep fake that. It’s on tape.
Posted on 9/18/24 at 9:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Does a human giving a prompt for machine learning to spit out token-based responses, created by the work of other humans, attach as speech by the human giving prompts? Or the humans who created the underlying speech used to mold the AI version? You can get into this sort of discussion for all the curated parts (the video, speech, etc.) of the output.
The second the person "posts" the AI work, it is their speech, wouldn't you say.
Posted on 9/18/24 at 9:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What was created may not be.
That could cause some serious issues for someone writing a movie or TV script if we go down that road.
quote:
What about deep fakes that aren't meant for comedy and only solely deception? Biden or Trump saying the N-word, for example.
Wouldn't that be more of a civil issue?
Posted on 9/18/24 at 9:01 am to BigPerm30
quote:
I didn’t realize Gavin Newscum could over ride the Constitution.
He can't
Posted on 9/18/24 at 9:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why would I need to mention anyone else?
You pointed out that it’s a big problem for MAGA. One would point out others or not point out MAGA if their underlying point wasn’t specific to MAGA. That’s how good communication works. It accurately reflects the point one is making.
quote:
Again, your bias is showing. You're so primed to react with whataboutism that you feel the lack of it shows some bias, when that's silly.
That’s nonsensical.
Posted on 9/18/24 at 9:03 am to Placekicker
What they really want is to really limit access to AI. They will use post history and a "social credit score".
So this will be unconstitutional. Which will then lead them to the "owners" of the AI, who will then restrict usage, at the states urging, at the private company level, to those who aren't deemed a "violent" risk based on your social credit score.
Because speech they don't like is hate speech (established over a decade ago), and hate speech is violence (established in the last decade), and now working on the equivalency that violence can be met with violence. This is the left's perspective. And all the "harmless & dumb PC talk" has been ignored by the right and has gotten to us to the point, using above, where:
Speech the left doesn't like warrants a violent physical response.
And if you don't think they are developing a blackmarket social credit score just look at who places like the ADL, SPLC, etc. put on their lists (e.g. Tea Party), who they don't (e.g. Antifa), and how often the left refers to them.
So this will be unconstitutional. Which will then lead them to the "owners" of the AI, who will then restrict usage, at the states urging, at the private company level, to those who aren't deemed a "violent" risk based on your social credit score.
Because speech they don't like is hate speech (established over a decade ago), and hate speech is violence (established in the last decade), and now working on the equivalency that violence can be met with violence. This is the left's perspective. And all the "harmless & dumb PC talk" has been ignored by the right and has gotten to us to the point, using above, where:
Speech the left doesn't like warrants a violent physical response.
And if you don't think they are developing a blackmarket social credit score just look at who places like the ADL, SPLC, etc. put on their lists (e.g. Tea Party), who they don't (e.g. Antifa), and how often the left refers to them.
Posted on 9/18/24 at 9:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If the information is "directed" to the jurisdiction, then it can, theoretically.
When you get caught with your pants down you come up with some broad statement that you think covers the issue and you do it over and over again which is why everybody on this website thinks you are a joke
Nothing about what is being mentioned specifically directed it towards California which is why the current law as it exist would not allow jurisdiction and posting some theoretical evolution is not the current state of law
Posted on 9/18/24 at 9:04 am to stout
quote:
That could cause some serious issues for someone writing a movie or TV script if we go down that road.
Writing a movie via AI?
Because that's the only way those words would apply to a person writing for a movie/TV. Producing your own work is not the same as using AI to produce it. We're only talking about the latter.
quote:
Wouldn't that be more of a civil issue?
It would 100% be a civil issue, at min, but that status removes it from blanket 1A protection.
Posted on 9/18/24 at 9:04 am to Placekicker
Good!!! Ban freedom of speech, ban guns, hell ban Christian churches. And then…. The Supreme Court will strike him down and everyone sees he’s a slimy snake oil salesman.
Posted on 9/18/24 at 9:06 am to Placekicker
shouldnt violating the Constitution result in the loss of your political position?
Posted on 9/18/24 at 9:06 am to moneyg
quote:
You pointed out that it’s a big problem for MAGA.
Posters on here being that MAGA group, yes.
Again, there are no leftists ITT promoting the same sort of echo chamber mind rot, so I ask again, why would I need to bring them up when they're irrelevant to the discussion/thread?
quote:
One would point out others or not point out MAGA if their underlying point wasn’t specific to MAGA.
My comment was specifically about MAGA posters making silly comments ITT, so within this discussion it is specifically about MAGA.
This isn't complicated.
quote:
That’s nonsensical.
No it's pretty simple. Your bias requires whataboutism. You are having problems because I did not engage in your bias, and you're telling me I should conform with that bias.
Posted on 9/18/24 at 9:06 am to stout
quote:
That could cause some serious issues for someone writing a movie or TV script if we go down that road.
Who cares about that?
The goal is to get something codified, whether in precedent or actual legislation, that gives the government more power over citizens’ expression.
SFP, noted technocrat cum libertinearian, is on board.
It’s all predictable. Throw out some malarkey for the IYI crowd to perform their omphaloskepsis and away we go.
Posted on 9/18/24 at 9:08 am to dafif
quote:
and posting some theoretical evolution is not the current state of law
We're literally discussing how AI is going for force that evolution in our law
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News