>29-year-old Daisy Link was being held at the Turner Guilford Knight
Correctional Center in Miami-Dade County, Florida, when she met 24-year-old Joan
Depaz, initially contacting him through the vents in their prison cells,
according to WSVN7. > >“You would knock on it and you can hear the people from
the different floors. You would stand on the toilet actually to be able to talk
to them,” said Link. “Being in isolation for so long you begin to spend hours
and hours talking to this person, you know, to the point where it’s almost as if
you’re in the same room with them.” > > … > > After Link and Depaz began a
romantic relationship, Depaz shared his ambitions to have a child with Link,
according to WSVN 7News. > >“I always really wanted to have a baby. And I’m not
gonna get to do that for a really long time,” said Depaz, recounting what he
told Link. “So if I had to choose somebody, you know, it would be you. And she
was like, ‘Yeah, we could do that.’” > >Depaz and Link then hatched a plan to
create a direct line between each other’s cells using bedding. Once they had
established this, Depaz began sending Link his own semen wrapped in saran wrap.
> > … > > “I put the semen in Saran Wrap every day like five times a day for
like a month straight” he continued. > >Link described receiving the packages,
which were rolled up “almost like a cigarette”, administering them to herself
using yeast infection applicators. > >After a couple of attempts, Link became
pregnant with “a miracle baby”, conceiving “like the Virgin Mary,” according to
Depaz.
Most of the removals are for being “off topic”, but one removal cites rules against disrespect and liberalism. The mod maintains that a leftist meme community isn’t the place for political debate.
I agree the ethics of corporate ai are problematic from an environmental and use case perspective, but not from a copyright perspective. Ethically, copyleft makes a lot more sense. Copyright only serves capitalism and is a fundamentally neoliberal concern.
I don’t care about copyright. I am an anarchist. What I was getting at though is AI is stealing jobs from writers and artists, and so I was arguing the use of AI is scabbing.
I agree with you in the sense that that corporations are stealing jobs from artists by usurping content creators on their massive platforms and replacing them with highly profitable (because they don’t have to pay anyone) GenAI images. That’s not a problem with GenAI though, it’s a problem with corporations and capitalism which prioritize profit above all else.
And the question of fighting for the rights of artists to rent seek an income based on 100 year+ IP rights (or whatever ridiculous number it is nowadays) is hard to square with a leftist position. Aren’t we supposed to be against that sort of thing?
Its not me trying to protect IP, its me standing in solidarity with artists. They need jobs like everyone else and I feel using AI is enabling corporations to take those jobs. Its an issue of right now we live under capitalism and need to help each other survive, and AI is hurting artists. Once capitalism is gone and artists don’t need to work to survive I have no issue with AI being used cause you aren’t hurting anyone anymore. I do not feel you can be in solidarity with artists and writers and also use generative AI as a medium as opposed to a tool.
I feel a good example is the Luddite movement. Industrialization can be good, especially in terms of reducing labor and increasing productivity. But in a capitalist world it comes with people losing their jobs and thus means to survival. The workers sabotaging the machinery were doing it because their jobs were at stake, not some moral issue with the tool. The tools are immoral because of how they affect people. Until you can get rid of that affect, it is immoral to use it. If we want to use GenAI we need capitalism gone. We need to work in the reality that exists presently, not the ideal future.
I agree the ethics of corporate ai are problematic from an environmental and use case perspective, but not from a copyright perspective. Ethically, copyleft makes a lot more sense. Copyright only serves capitalism and is a fundamentally neoliberal concern.
I don’t care about copyright. I am an anarchist. What I was getting at though is AI is stealing jobs from writers and artists, and so I was arguing the use of AI is scabbing.
I agree with you in the sense that that corporations are stealing jobs from artists by usurping content creators on their massive platforms and replacing them with highly profitable (because they don’t have to pay anyone) GenAI images. That’s not a problem with GenAI though, it’s a problem with corporations and capitalism which prioritize profit above all else.
And the question of fighting for the rights of artists to rent seek an income based on 100 year+ IP rights (or whatever ridiculous number it is nowadays) is hard to square with a leftist position. Aren’t we supposed to be against that sort of thing?
Its not me trying to protect IP, its me standing in solidarity with artists. They need jobs like everyone else and I feel using AI is enabling corporations to take those jobs. Its an issue of right now we live under capitalism and need to help each other survive, and AI is hurting artists. Once capitalism is gone and artists don’t need to work to survive I have no issue with AI being used cause you aren’t hurting anyone anymore. I do not feel you can be in solidarity with artists and writers and also use generative AI as a medium as opposed to a tool.
I feel a good example is the Luddite movement. Industrialization can be good, especially in terms of reducing labor and increasing productivity. But in a capitalist world it comes with people losing their jobs and thus means to survival. The workers sabotaging the machinery were doing it because their jobs were at stake, not some moral issue with the tool. The tools are immoral because of how they affect people. Until you can get rid of that affect, it is immoral to use it. If we want to use GenAI we need capitalism gone. We need to work in the reality that exists presently, not the ideal future.