Science Memes

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] alleycat@feddit.de 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

No one but complete morons are asking to specifically make a product by emitting carbon dioxide. No company is emitting co2 for "the global citizens". They make products to earn money. Emissions are an avoidable by-product no one asked for.

parent

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

No one but complete morons are asking to specifically make a product by emitting carbon dioxide

Agreed

Emissions are an avoidable by-product no one asked for.

...

How is this not a contradiction?

No company is emitting co2 for “the global citizens”. They make products to earn money.

How do you expect them to earn money without selling to global citizens?

parent

[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Saying that our only options are to produce stuff or not produce CO2 at a gargantuan scale is a false dichotomy. CO2 production at the scale that it is now is the result of the production processes that result in that CO2 being cheaper than the ones that on the whole, do not. We are flushing this planet down the drain not because we cant do otherwise but because its cheaper right now to do what were doing instead.

parent

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev -2 points 2 years ago

Saying that our only options are to produce stuff or not produce CO2 at a gargantuan scale is a false dichotomy.

Completely false conclusion to my questions. I'm saying companies make stuff because they want to make money. They can make money because people buy it. So, if people didn't buy stuff, companies couldn't sell stuff, and they couldn't make money.

We live in society of waste and overconsumption. The EU throws away more food than it imports, but if you think that's wasteful, the average USAian consumes double to triple the amount of energy a European does and even more food.

Yes, companies don't make a big effort to reduce wasteful production processes, don't voluntarily make an effort to reduce emissions, and lobby as hard as they can to continue doing so because it's cheaper. However, we the consumers, the "global citizens" - and let's actually be clear, it's the global north - consume more than we should, waste more than we should, and lot of it happens by ignoring the destruction wrought by the companies we buy from.

We are all the fucking problem. We work at these companies that pollute. We buy from these companies that pollute - and not even the least amount possible; we lavishly indulge. We vote for politicians that choose to turn a blind eye. We generate billions of tons of waste and happily do more.

parent

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

Lol you think a link is going to stop anyone scraping Lemmy data for AI training?

parent

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

No, what it means is that if they can prove someone scraped their data and used it for commercial gain - they can sue them for real money.

parent

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I am skeptical.

parent

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

There's nothing to be skeptical about.

The difficulty isn't in establishing legal precedence, the difficulty is in the proof. How do you prove that your data is distinguishable from any of the other countless people who have had their data scraped?

I don't think it's bad to set yourself up for a future payday, but it will take a lot of work from someone else in order to see it pay off.

parent

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago

You might be able to prompt the AI to tell you itself by asking about text that goes with the label. I was able to get chatgpt 3.5 to do a bit of that, though it still kept it fairly generic.

The part I'm skeptical about is whether you can apply whatever license you want to text you post on a public forum just by pasting a link at the bottom.