Wikileaks was never really a beacon of free speech its always been more of a platform where people can leak information about goverments and other powerful individuals or organizations doing bunch of shady or downright evil stuff behind our back. These often offer rare glimpse behind the scenes allowing us to be little less blind when voting during whather elections comes next.

When WikiLeaks first came about it’s original goal was aimed at leaking information about authoritarian governments, primarily China and some countries in the Middle East. It was pretty big news at the time because assange had wrangled together a team of some pretty high profile Journalist and privacy tech people.

However, most of those people were never really involved in the organization, and were mainly utilized as a marketing scheme. The rest slowly left the organization as works in their fields within WikiLeaks stagnated, or left over security and leadership concerns.

Imo Assange has always been a duplicitous attention seeker. However, if that were illegal, pretty much everyone involved in media would be thrown in a cell. I think his biggest failures that should tarnish his public image is his handling of the leaks. Him rushing to release information against the advise of his security experts, information that hadn’t been properly vetted to protect the whistle blowers from prosecution.

Multiple people have had their lives ruined because he didn’t take the time and effort to protect his sources. And not because they didn’t have the ability to, or lacked the proper protocols, but because Julian didn’t care so long as his name got air time.

Lol, If was in it for the money I wouldn’t be working at a children’s hospital run by one of the poorest states in America.

My concern isn’t even particularly with the the creator, she’s an artist. My problem is when people try to pass it off as a medical device that can help disabled people.

An even larger problem is when hobbyist start making medical devices for children. There are inherent problems they do not understand, because they lack education in the field. Children are so adaptive that if you don’t provide them with a device that actually provides sufficient utility they will adapt to not wearing a prosthetic at all, severely limiting their future mobility/functionality.

Dani Clode -Senior Technical Specialist at the Plasticity Lab, Cambridge University | Formlabs 3D Printing Ambassador.

Nah, she just partners with a university lab. This happens all the time at universities, basically just a PR project to attract funding.

Another useless prosthetic designed by 3d printing enthusiasts…

I work in orthotics and prosthetics, and the majority of the articles written about the “next gen” prosthetics are just marketing materials trying to wrangle up VC funding.

Nothing about this makes sense. First of all, no one intuitively knows how to usefully operate a “third thumb”, so the learning curve on this is going to impede its adoption. We already have a hard time getting upper limb patients to use their prosthetics, and that’s when we’re purposely mimicking something they already know.

Secondly, the utility of thumbs in general is that they are opposable. With the placement of their “thumb” the only digit you can utilize with it is your other thumb… Which means adding a thumb negates the advantage of thumbs in the first place.

Finally, and most the important aspect to any prosthetics is utility. If this is meant to help people missing their other arm…how do they get the prosthetic on in the first place? And when you do manage to get someone to help you put this on, we’re supposed to use our big toe as the action controller? Okay, so that means you can utilize this thing while walking?

Why on gods green earth did they not use myoelectrics? We’ve had them since the 70’s, why is this “cutting edge” prosthetic going backwards in technology?

Oh wait, I can tell you… Because it was designed by a 3d printing lab with no experience in actual prosthetics. 3d printers are successfully being used in prosthetics, but only when the person utilizing them has a background in prosthetics or biomedical engineering. Ends up it’s a lot easier to have a prosthetist learn about 3d printing than it is to teach a 3d printing enthusiast about a field of study that requires education in physiology, anatomy, material science, and fabrication…

Reading comprehension is still hard for you? My argument was about Cathartic theory, which includes several emotions including sexual urges… It is a theory from freud, of course it covers sexual urges.

You and the other guy just have no idea what you’re talking about. How about providing any kind of source instead of talking out of your ass?

But I do recognize a logical fallacy when I see one.

I doubt that, so far your argument has been based on the anecdotal fallacy mixed with a bit of the appeal to authority fallacy.

The point is you can reduce anything to its origin.

Okay, but how does the modern version of cathartic theory differ from what freud postulated?

I agree you can’t reduce things based on its original alone , which is why I included a scientific source as evidence…

Lol, you were the one who first dismissed evidence because it was 20 years old…

Let’s see here, listen to my therapist who has decades of real experience or a study from over 20 years ago?

Your therapist is still utilizing Freudian psychoanalysis?

Well, if age is a factor in your opinion about the validity of the care you receive, I have some bad news for you…

understand that the theory supposedly applies to other areas as well, but as you so helpfully pointed out: the theory doesn’t seem to hold up.

My original claim was that cathartic theory in and of itself is not founded on evidence based research.

but at the same time, the theory is totally correct! (when it’s convenient to you, that is)

When did I claim it was ever correct?

I think you are misconstruing my original claim with the claims made by the cathartic theory itself.

I don’t claim that cathartic theory is beneficial in any way, you are the one claiming that Cathartic theory is correct for sexual aggression, but not for violence.

Do you have a source that claims cathartic theory is beneficial for satiation deviant sexual impulses?

then the claim of a link between sexuality and aggression is also without support, until you provide a source for that claim.

You are wanting me to provide an evidence based claim between the two when I’ve already said the overarching theory is not based on evidence?

The primary principle to establish is the theory of cathartic relief, not wether it works for one emotion or the other. You have not provided any evidence to support that claim, I have provided evidence that disputes it.

but is not relevant to the topic at hand.

The belief that indulging in AI created child porn relieves the sexual deviant behaviour of being attracted to actual minors utilizes the cathartic theory. The cathartic theory is typically understood to relate to an array of emotions, not just anger. "Further, the catharsis hypothesis maintains that aggressive or sexual urges are relieved by “releasing” aggressive or sexual energy, usually through action or fantasy. "

follows the same patterns as aggression. that’s a pretty big claim! i’d like to see a source that supports that claim.

That’s not a claim I make, it’s a claim that cathartic theory states. As I said the cathartic hypothesis is a byproduct of Freudian psychology, which has largely been debunked.

Your issue is with the theory in and of itself, which my claim is already stating to be problematic.

but is also entirely off-topic…

No, you are just conflating colloquial understanding of catharsis with the psychological theory.

Lol, my source is about the cathartic hypothesis. So your theory is that it doesn’t work with anger, but does work for sexual deviancy?

Do you have a source that supports that?

Catharsis theory predicts that venting anger should get rid of it and should therefore reduce subsequent aggression. The present findings, as well as previous findings, directly contradict catharsis theory (e.g., Bushman et al., 1999; Geen & Quanty, 1977). For reduc- ing anger and aggression, the worst possible advice to give people is to tell them to imagine their provocateur’s face on a pillow or punching bag as they wallop it, yet this is precisely what many pop psychologists advise people to do. If followed, such advice will only make people angrier and more aggressive.

Source

But there’s a lot more studies who have essentially said the same thing. The cathartic hypothesis is mainly a byproduct of the Freudian era of psychology, where hypothesis mainly just sounded good to someone on too much cocaine.

Do you have a source of studies showing the opposite?

Currently even if they used voice clips to train a model on her voice it wouldn’t be illegal.

I think that’s currently the point of contention…

That isn’t currently the case, since they say they used an other actress that sounds like her anyways.

That’s what they’re claiming, but it’s not like open AI doesn’t have a pretty well documented history of lying.

No! Just like she doesn’t deserve to own the four chord progressions that make up her songs.

There’s a difference between common chord progressions and plagiarizing someone’s voice and performance. You are the only person conflating the two.

This is why none of this is copyrightable. There are two many people that have similar voices

I think their intent is pretty clear. They didn’t want a similar voice, they wanted her voice. After failing at getting her consent, they proceeded anyways.

and too many songs that use similar chord progressions.

There’s actual precedent on how similar songs can be to each other without giving credit. Simple chord progressions aren’t copyrightable, but how those chord progressions are performed are.

Your fantasy where this empowers small time artists is just that, a fantasy.

Lol, if they are able to plagiarize art from millionaires, what’s the chance there’s going to be any kind of protections for small artist?

If we push and they come out with new laws that make these things copyrightable, you just end up with corporations owning all of it.

We don’t have to come out with laws banning chord progressions, that’s just a strawman argument you erected yourself. We just need to apply the laws we currently have to AI companies. If Sony had tried to get her to dress like black widow and do a commercial and she refused. And if they then proceeded to hire an actress who looked like her, dressed the actress in a black skin tight suit, and gave her a red wig… We’d be dealing with a hefty lawsuit, even if they claimed it wasn’t supposed to be SJ.

Well that, and the idea of cathartic relief is increasingly being dispelled. Behaviour once thought to act as a pressure relief for harmful impulsive behaviour is more than likely just a pattern of escalation.

I think they’re both pretty similar. The main difference being that one is being played from a shitty phone speaker and recorded by a camera and the other is coming from studio quality audio.

Not really an admition of guilt like the article makes it seem.

You don’t need an admission of guilt to lose in court. The fact that they pursued her permission up until 2 days before the release, even after being assured the client did not wish for them to utilize her voice, is pretty damning.

I don’t think scar jo deserves to own the whole spectrum her voice belongs to just because she voiced an AI in one movie.

What’s the difference between this and an AI releasing a Taylor Swift album? Does Taylor Swift deserve to own a whole spectrum of voice?

Voice acting is still an art, and artists deserve to be paid for their contributions. If she has performed an awfully in Her, would they still want to mimic her voice? If Her hadn’t been made, would they have come up with the voice and personality out of the blue?

No, because it’s art, and AI is just an advanced copying machine. Open AI is just the newest attempt to leverage artists and workers from their group bargaining power. It’s the scab of the future, but with more carbon emissions.

Yeah, I can’t tell if that person was intentionally trying to muddy the waters, or if they were really that ignorant. Lemmy seems to be full of oddly specific radicals.

Blackface isn’t always about caricature, we see this most frequently in Hollywood, but it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve seen a white person wearing dreadlocks or even a traditional Nigerian outfit.

That’s just a person who likes Nigerian culture, it’s not someone claiming that they are Nigerian.

Blackface itself is a little rarer, but being tanned to look like someone from the Mediterranean is still very popular

That’s just adjusting your skin tone for fashion. If i asked someone getting a tan what they were doing they wouldn’t say “I’m becoming Greek”.

likewise White-face is an entire make-up industry with various skin lightening products. It’s okay to want to make yourself look white but woe betide anyone wants to actually look black, nope, must be a caricature.

Because the cultures whom do that aren’t mimicing a different ethnicity, but attempting to lighten their skin because in their own culture light skin typically meant you didn’t labour outside.

What do you do if a white kid wants to be a dark elf at a party? Same goes for cosplayers.

Yes, culture identity is the same as playing a fictional game?..

The point Rowling was making, well okay, if it’s not acceptable under any circumstances to attempt to change your race, even if you ‘feel’ like that race, then why is it acceptable to change the gender.

Because the systemic nature of sexism and racism are completely different. You cannot change your “race” because that particular social construct involves actual shared lived experiences particular to each society. Part of belonging to that particular culture is that shared experience. There is no common shared experience that includes every woman in every society. Women of different societies have vastly different shared life experiences depending on their individual cultures.

good faith matters and blackface isn’t always caricature

Blackface is definitionally always a caricature…

“Blackface is the practice of non-black performers using burnt cork or theatrical makeup to portray a caricature of black people on stage or in entertainment”

Engaging in black America’s culture, or enjoying African culture is not blackface. The fact that you are conflating the two is either very ignorant, or intentionally racist.

The reason I mention prison, is because when someone is convicted of racism, that’s generally what happens. Depending on your country blackface can land you in prison.

I think that’s quite pedantic, there are very few countries where racism alone will land you in legal troubles, let alone in jail.

Even if we examine the countries where it is punishable by prison time, I doubt the citizens of those countries would “accidentally” dress in black face, and I doubt you could provide me with one incident of someone ending up in jail for “accidental” racism.

Legal issues are Human Decency issues boiled down.

Unquestionably untrue. Legality has no historic basis in morality or ethics, it’s simply a means to control/organize social hierarchy.

I think you do have to have intent or some awareness to be racist. Whether you recognize that as racism or not is a different matter.

Your argument is semantic in nature. What’s the difference between being a racist and participating in racism? If you are against desegregation because it would negatively your property value, are you a racist? Well what would you typically call someone who is vehemently opposing desegregation?

Is it human decency to want to emulate what you like? I think it is. So I don’t mind people wanting to change the color of their skin if that’s what they want to do.

Because culture and ethnicity is not just about the color of your skin, It’s a shared history of lived experiences. Even if you could genetically change the melanin content of your skin, you did not grow up being treated as a Black American, you did not experience the same institutional systemic racism as the minority group you are aping.

as much as I don’t mind them wanting to change their gender, if that’s what suits them, great.

Again, this is falsely conflating gender identity with ethnic identity. Women of different cultures have vastly different shared experiences than women of the same culture.

Since race is 100% a social construct much more so than Gender (the difference between the genes are stupidly small).

While race is a human construct, so is law, economics, and government. The implementation of these social constructs creates very real shared experiences that bond a community together in a unique way.

The ethnicity argument is largely one about cultural appropriation: You can’t have my skin color because you weren’t born with it, you’re actually another color, you don’t know what it means to be my skin color.

More like, you aren’t a part of my culture because my culture is in large part a result of systemic abuse over the color of my skin, and you have never shared that experience.

(Just replace skin color with gender).

Again, gender is not a culture, it’s part of of every culture.

You enjoy R&B, love black hair styles, love black skin tones, maybe you believe in your heart you were always black, go right ahead have at. I’m not going to judge you.

I think defining a culture down to pigmentation while ignoring the hundreds of years of systemic abuse is quite upsetting to most minority groups. It really sounds like youre supplementing your idea of your own ethnic identity onto others. Ethnicity tends to be less important to those whom are a part of the ruling ethnic majority, because you haven’t experienced what it’s like to be a minority. You don’t understand what it’s like when your ethnicity is how you are judged.