Yeah, and I think Buffalox agrees aswell. We were simply talking past each other. Even they used the term “depictions of CSAM” which is the same as the “simulated CSAM” term I was using myself.

For me, this was at no point about the morality of it. I’ve been strictly talking about the definition of terms. While laws often prohibit both CSAM and depictions of it, there’s still a difference between the two. CSAM is effectively synonymous with “evidence of crime” If it’s AI generated, photoshopped, drawn or what ever, then there has not been a crime and thus the content doesn’t count as evidence of it. Abuse material literally means what it says; it’s video/audio/picture content of the event itself. It’s illegal because producing it without harming children is impossible.

EDIT: It’s kind of same as calling AI generated pictures photographs. They’re not photographs. Photographs are taken with a camera. Even if the picture an AI generates is indistinguishable from a photograph it still doesn’t count as one because no cameras were involved.

Please tell me what own fact/definitions I’m spreading here. To me it seems like it’s you whose taking a self-explainatory, narrow definition and stretching the meaning of it.

I already told you that I’m not speaking from legal point of view. CSAM means a specific thing and AI generated content doesn’t fit under this definition. The only way to generate CSAM is by abusing children and taking pictures/videos of it. AI content doesn’t count any more than stick figure drawings do. The justice system may not differentiate the two but that is not what I’m talking about.

Being legally considered CSAM and actually being CSAM are two different things. I stand behind what I said which wasn’t legal advise. By definition it’s not abuse material because nobody has been abused.

It’s not legal advice I’m giving here.

What’s blatantly false about what I said?

First of all, it’s by definition not CSAM if it’s AI generated. It’s simulated CSAM - no people were harmed doing it. That happened when the training data was created.

However it’s not necessary that such content even exists in the training data. Just like ChatGPT can generate sentences it has never seen before, image generators can also generate pictures it has not seen before. Ofcourse the results will be more accurate if that’s what it has been trained on but it’s not strictly necessary. It just takes a skilled person to write the prompt.

My understanding is that the simulated CSAM content you’re talking about has been made by people running their software locally and having provided the training data themselves.

It would be stronger but I doubt that would correlate much with speed or endurance. I can squat almost double my bodyweight but my cooper test score is around 2500. A runner with way less leg strenght could easily outperform me.

It’s kind of related to the abortion discussion. I don’t think the question is “should they be allowed to” but rather “when are they allowed to” I think that in some situations there’s a case to be made for after-birth-abortion but I don’t quite feel like “not wanting to deal with it” is a sufficient reason.

If I go to a juice bar and order a drink made with one orange, one banana, one kiwi, and two scoops of ice, blended to fill a cup, I fully understand that it’s not the ice I’m paying for. If I ask for the same drink without ice, I don’t expect them to throw in another orange and half a banana to fill the cup.

I don’t disagree that with something like soda or coffee, it costs them nothing to replace the ice with more drink. But I also don’t feel entitled to guilt them if they don’t. They’re serving the same amount of drink to everyone - I just prefer mine without ice.

If half of the drink is ice and you order it without ice then it’s to be expected that the cup would only be half full.

With soda, they made the drink with the ice melting in mind.

I don’t think this is true. The soda machine is probably programmed to deliver just enough soda so that it doesn’t overflow the cup. Now, if you order it without ice it’ll deliver the exact same amount of soda but the cup wont be as full due to lack of ice.

I don’t believe in free will or the self. That’s the difference for me here. Just like the hurricane couldn’t have done otherwise, I don’t think that a human could have either. I wouldn’t get angry at a bear attacking me in the forest either - that’s what bears do. Doesn’t mean I like it, or approve of it but I just don’t pretend as if they could have acted any other way.

No, I don’t think the feeling of anger is foreign to anyone. It’s a basic human emotion and we’re all capable of it. By my question I’m rather asking about dwelling in anger thorought the day/week rather than the acute sense of it when something anger-provoking has just happened.

When someone cuts me off in traffic I might go “You son of a…” but then I catch myself getting angry and the feeling of it just kind of vanishes. It doesn’t really withstand any sort of observation. I guess the difference here is getting angry and staying angry.

Hate is an extremely strong emotion. To me, it means basically that you wish they were dead. That I do not feel of anyone. However, I can’t say I intensely dislike anyone either. It’s not quite compatible with the way I see the world. Hating a person, to me, is like hating a hurricane or a volcano. It simply doesn’t make any sense.

What anger?

If the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, it implies that everything that can happen will happen - or has already happened. If time travel is possible, this would include every possible outcome of you traveling to the past and altering events.

What I think would happen is that nothing would change in this timeline. Instead, you’d simply travel to another timeline where you made those changes, and you’d experience the consequences of your actions there. However, it’s also possible that such a scenario doesn’t align with the laws of physics, meaning that nothing would happen because time travel to the past - and any related interference - might simply be impossible.

I think he’s an exceptional person in both good and bad. There’s a shit ton of people born into much more wealth than he did but they havent achieved anything even remotely close to what Elon has. Having access to recources helps but it’s not the only factor.

I am doing it but not on OnlyFans and not for money. I’d be more than happy to monetize it if it was that simple but I’m a guy making quite niche content so I’ll stick with the crowd of few thousand Twitter users following me.