What do you mean instead? why is what they are doing now insufficient ?

At this point i doubt they give a fuck what the general populace thinks, unless it affects their bottom line.

But you seem to want an answer, so let's work through the "options"

This would depend on what their goals are.

Assuming they want to continue with their track record of maximum capitalism, their best option is to eat shit, and by that i mean do whatever the fuck they want and ignore anything that isn't inline with profit/control.

Complaints from the populace, sure. Maximum profits, also yes.

If they really want to stop people complaining about them their best best would be to stop doing sketchy, illegal and unpopular things.

That wouldn't stop all complaints, this is the internet, but it would probably bring it down quite a bit.

if they wanted partially rehabilitate their image over this specific instance of terrible PR, they could:

• Release the data of the scanned books directly.
  • if they can afford the lobbying and legal costs to ignore copyright for their environment destroying slop-machines^*1^, they can probably afford the same for straight up releasing the scans.
• Use any of the myriad of non-destructive means of scanning books + release the books in to the wild after
  • More expensive, requires you to do something with the intact books after
  • See the previous comment about the affordability of lobbying/legal fees
• Not do this at all

*1,

"Environment destroying slop-machine"

&

"Useful tool in some circumstances, as long as you can personally square away the ethical and moral concerns"

aren't mutually exclusive, if this is the hill you choose to die on you're going to die mad about it.

That's true, but sitting in a warehouse is costing someone money and I'm sure they were more than happy to sell the books even if they knew they'd eventually get destroyed.

Sure, thats a possibility, I wasnt arguing otherwise.

But the other thing is, what should these companies do instead? They scraped the internet and got skewered for that. They pirated books and got in trouble for that. Now they are legally purchasing books to scan.

For me, them doing sketchy and illegal shit, mostly getting away with it and then charging you for access to said ill-gotten gains is a valid reason for people to be upset at them, rage inducing, even.

That aside the equivalent of mass book burning isn't a good look regardless of legality, even less so when its the same people that did the sketchy shit before.

There is no benefit of the doubt left.

I can see how someone could get to:

"all they do is sketchy shit so even though this might look legit, let's vocally show our disdain for them and anything they are doing"

ok, i'll change the emphasis.

Who can run is not the only criteria for who is qualified for a position.

Ok, so leaving out the subjective argument of who should be qualified, let's go with straight up logic, i'll bullet point it for you.

I'll even start with your very correct assertion that anybody who can run, can win.

• Anyone eligible to run, can win.
• To win, a candidate has to be voted in (by whatever voting system is used, it doesn’t matter for this)
• A vote is cast by an individual who has their own set of criteria for qualification.
• Unless every single voter's only criteria is whether or not the candidate is eligible to run then there are other criteria at play.

I'll also requote myself from an earlier reply.

Perhaps "evaluated for" is more accurate.

Eligibility to run is still not the full criteria for how someone is evaluated for a position though.

Perhaps the disconnect is that you think everyone who is eligible is qualified for the job and it's just the winner of all these qualified people that is determined by the vote ?

So just to be clear when you say popularity, you mean who people like the most, on a personal level ?

Not something like who people think is the most fit for the job, regardless of personal like or dislike ?

I have no idea what you are saying now. You’re saying, you should dictatorially be given the power to appoint school board members, and you’d do so solely on a first come, first given, basis?

I mean, not at all , read the reply again.

OK, so you are saying you want to be a dictator of school board members, because you are the one who should have sole authority in this area. And you would not judge people based on qualifications or merit?

Ah, i see, you don't have an actual response so you weaponise ignorance, that's actually pretty clever.

It's hard to argue with someone not using reason as a basis, you neither have to present a reasonable argument nor support it, that's downright devious.

In case that reply was serious and you just missed what i was saying, i'll try and simplify for you and leave out the extra words around it so there's nothing to be confused about...ready ?

Who can run is not the only criteria for who is qualified for a position.

Just to be clear, you're arguing that merit/competence can't be accurately judged and therefore should be ignored in favour of popularity ?

TL; DR;

• Using bad analogies to explain things that are already confusing helps no-one
• AI is currently a marketing term used to push LLM's
• Tools used appropriately garner satisfactory results.

people need to specify that they’re against generative LLMs, like Chat-bots or slop-generators, not “all AI”.

I agree, how does throwing out bad comparisons relate to that ?

There was just a thread on Twitter where a company showcased an amazing tool for animators - where you, for example, prepare your walking/sitting/standing animations, but then instead of motion-capturing or manually setting the scene up, you just define two keyframes - the starting and the ending position of the character… and then their AI picks the appropriate animations, merges between them and animates the character walking from one position to the other.

It’s a phenomenal tool for creatives, but because the term “AI” appeared, the company got shat on by random people.

if you are talking about cascadeur or something similar, that doesn't use an LLM afaict, it's based on ML Trained on their own internal data (or so they say).

I don't disagree that tools used in a way that plays to their strength are useful.

People are often conflating AI with LLM's, which makes sense for the average person, because that's how it's been marketed and sold.

LLM's aren't even really AI but here we are.

No. All generative graphical slop AIs and generic chat-bot LLMs have been trained on large corpus of data that has been obtained by various sketchy and illegitimate means.

I was very specific in my wording, but as i said, i could be wrong, if you can point to any big commercial LLM’s that don't adhere to my classification i will concede the point.

THAT’S the major difference.

I mean, yes, that's what i said.

So i stand my my conclusion that in the context you laid out, Photoshop isn't a good comparison to most, if not all of the current tools that would be considered AI.

So, he basically says something that directly contradicts what you’re saying - he prefers the generative slop machines, than tools that actually help developers or artists.

I could be wrong but half of that statement was sarcasm.

I basically read it as:

So I’m gonna execute the code of someone who doesn’t know the first thing about coding on my computer? Great! I’d rather have AI art and human code.

Running code someone vibed up without understanding what it's doing, it stupid If i had to pick one way around or the other, I’d rather have AI art(which is this case is significantly less of a security risk) and human code (which should potentially be of a higher quality)

I think the fundamental misunderstanding here is how the term AI is used.

None of these things are really intelligent and LLM's are predictive semi-hallucination machines cobbling together best guesses at what's supposed to come next in the sequence.

The way i personally see it is that the latest gen "AI" stuff is basically sitting on LLM's in some capacity. Area recognition, language, image/code generation etc.

Anything else is just normal(perhaps smart) tools, using algorithms of some kind, ML etc

Weak comparisons help no-one, photoshop is nothing like LLM's

All of the big commercial LLM's (without exception afaik) have been trained on a large corpus of data that has been obtained by various sketchy and illegitimate means. (some legitimate as well).

That's the major difference between the two.

If you are using a model that has only been trained on legally obtained data, disregard this point.

I'm not even against competent tool use of LLM's but please use better arguments.

I detailed my thoughts and arguments, feel free to address those directly.

if you want to ignore most of the reply to argue against a stance i wasn't taking there's not much of a conversation to be had here.

Yes, the inverse is also true. Which is why it was necessary to investigate it to see why he died, as it was not clear why.

Agree, but cause of death is not the same as whether or not he was killed, i know you're not seeing the distinction.

You, however, just saw the video and assumed the cop’s actions caused his death. It’s unclear why considering his actions would not normally kill someone.

I saw a video of someone not immediately dying, then a bunch of people restraining him, then he died.

It's reasonable to assume if he was just standing there and they hadn't interacted at all, he wouldn't have died.

I'll break it down into steps:

No interaction -> I'm assuming he isn't just going to drop dead in that moment.

Interaction -> he died.

Therefore interaction led to death.

It is possible, though very unlikely he could have just dropped dead of his own accord, it's not a reasonable assumption that he would though.

I'm not sure how why this is a difficult concept , but it's certainly interesting to see.

Entirely relevant. If you saw a video of them feeding him a peanut butter sandwich and he died right afterward, you have no clear evidence without autopsy that he didn’t have a heart attack or something. You can’t just assume the cop’s actions caused it.

That's some top tier mental gymnastics, but not entirely incorrect.

The same could be said that if someone was shot and bled out, you couldn't be sure it wasn't a heart attack that killed them, but you can be reasonable sure it was getting shot that led to the death.

Yes, i suppose you couldn't be sure until the autopsy, but it's reasonable to assume causation until proven otherwise.

Please note that i'm saying causation and not the legal qualifications for murder or manslaughter, because so far you seem to be conflating the two.

How is it not an assumption to say the cop’s actions caused his death prior to autopsy?

Hmm, you are right, that is my bad, it is an assumption, even after the autopsy.

I stand by it being a reasonable assumption though. ( of killing, not intent )

I’m an not talking about manslaughter, murder, none of that. I’m not talking about intent. I am talking about the same definition of killing that you are.

You are not, i'm talking about cause and effect you're talking about media bias and fairness.

As i said, if they'd been having lunch and he'd been accidentally given a strong allergen, the conversation would be very different.

Still killing though.

Even if everyone knew, for a fact, that the death was caused by the actions of the police, that isn't itself a bias take with regards to the trial/law.

That's just cause and effect.

The law is couched in intention and context, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for distinctions such as murder, manslaughter etc. There would be an autopsy and a conviction.

I grew up in Texas in a deep red county.

In a country notorious for it's systemic and institutionalized racism, you grew up in a section that votes predominantly for the party that is notoriously racist ( In general, not in comparison to any other party ) and would claim that race has no part in a decision that is known to have racial divides in applicability.

That might be the greatest feat of mental gymnastics i've ever seen, truly.

On the off-chance you genuinely mean what you say:

That you and the people you know don't care about race is laudable, but it doesn't seem to be broadly applicable to the rest of the state or country ( and in the case of republicans their party )

You’re never going to get an honest answer to this question,

The honest answer was in the post they were originally replying to.

I will never tolerate ads. I will give up YouTube before I watch ads.

Youtube isn't an existential need.

Ad's or bust isn't a real dichotomy.

Here's another honest suggestion, drop ~~free~~ ad supported Youtube as a product and go full premium.

It'd significantly reduce infrastructure costs and they'd be able to fund it with subscription monies.

edit: used the wrong quote at the start