• 2 Posts
  • 775 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Aquileo | cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

Aquileo | help-circle







  • Khanzarate@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldYes, yes they are
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    6
    Aquileo | arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I mean, financially it wasn’t really a choice. Cotton wasn’t profitable without slavery. Inherit a cotton farm from your racist parents and capitalism would ensure the racism kept flowing.

    That’s why we had to force the issue in the first place, the south needed the institution of slavery, and wasn’t just fighting to defend slavery because they thought it was neat, it was because they needed it.

    No excuses, but when immoral behavior is profitable behavior, yes, people can get dependent.




  • A lawyer is considered an extension of your (legal) self. The reason is that if your lawyer can be compelled to talk about your private communications, then a client won’t actually get a fair trial, as they needed that lawyer aware of everything to defend them properly, but if prosecution could just call your lawyer to the stand and go “did they do it?”, no one would tell lawyers anything incriminating.

    Your spouse is also considered to be part of you, legally. You have a right to confide in them, they are part of your life.

    Same for a priest, many religions require confessions and have religious consequences for not confessing or a priest telling what they heard. The right for them protects them from being forced to break religious rules, although notably this one doesn’t exist everywhere.

    Nurses and doctors are covered in the same way, actually. Revealing your medical information improperly is a HIPAA violation.

    Aside from spousal privilege, all of these relate to their job. Your lawyer defends you, your priest hears your confessions, your doctors and nurses treat you. If you tell your priest about your heart condition and your lawyer about your blaspheming against god and your doctor about that time you murdered a man back in '03, then no privilege protects you at all.




  • No.

    That’s true for people. Corporations don’t learn from mistakes and cannot improve over time, they’re legally obligated to seek shareholder value.

    Expecting a corporation to do things for the right reasons is like expecting AI to do things for the right reason.

    If we must interact with either, we must simply be glad when the answer is correct. If we want corporations to act more like people and be able to have real values, we need to bake a corporation’s values into law in some way.

    Private businesses can still have morals and can learn and all that good stuff where the method matters, but public ones will always dehumanize.

    So I’m happy they hit the right result. I’m also happy they’re talking about it like this even though this talk is also just a publicity response, because other companies might see this and also do the right thing for the wrong (purely financial) reason.

    But this is also why corporations shouldn’t be people and should be barred from everything involving government and all that, if not abolished altogether.





  • This is definitely not the least effort. They could’ve not done the shading between the folds of the clothes, skipped the whorls and swirls on the shovel handle, all sorts of things.

    This just seems low-effort now because AI really did prefer this style, and stole it, but this took so much more effort than you’re giving them credit for.

    This is exactly why artists hate AI, it doesn’t undervalue their work directly, it gets real people like you to undervalue it. Don’t let AI determine your opinions so easily.