mechoman444

I mean you’re wrong. Literally everything you said is wrong.

First, the idea that AI data centers are simply being built while ignoring all public objections is factually incorrect. A substantial number of proposed AI data center projects have been delayed, scaled back, or canceled specifically because of community opposition, permitting challenges, environmental concerns, and political pushback. Public resistance is having a measurable impact.

Second, “the rule of law protects the inanimate toys of techbros” is just rhetoric. The rule of law protects property rights, contracts, and individuals. Whether it does so fairly in every case is a legitimate debate, and I agree that corporations often have disproportionate influence in American politics. But that’s very different from claiming the law exists only to protect corporations or their assets.

Finally, I don’t even know what you mean by “it does not protect human workers.” Protect them from what? Wage theft? Unsafe working conditions? Wrongful termination? Union busting? There are entire bodies of labor law dedicated to protecting workers, even if you believe those protections are insufficient or poorly enforced. As written, your statement is so broad that it’s impossible to evaluate because it doesn’t identify what specific protection you think is missing.

Source

Source

Source

I haven’t moved the goalposts.

What are you talking about?

I’ve been very consistent with what I’ve been saying. At no point have I claimed that people are being too flexible with their morals.

I’ve essentially made three points:

Theft is morally wrong, regardless of whether it can be justified in a particular circumstance.

Lemmy is being two-faced in how it applies its moral standards.

Theft is, by definition, wrongdoing.

I’ve repeatedly acknowledged that theft is highly nuanced and that there are situations where it can be morally justified. I’ve said that multiple times. My criticism is that many Lemmy users will admonish people who disagree with their personal opinions, yet turn around and excuse or even celebrate theft whenever it’s directed at something they dislike.

Either theft is theft, or it isn’t. Definitions don’t change based on personal opinion, and neither does the law. Whether an act is morally justified is a separate question from whether it still fits the definition of theft.

Yes. I’ve heard of this. I’m not happy about the upgrade. I only need windows for gaming otherwise I’d be on Linux.

Look, as long as we both agree that theft is, by definition, a crime, which it is, then we’re on the same page.

My point was that the way some people are talking makes it sound as though theft sometimes isn’t a crime or isn’t morally reprehensible.

I fully agree that wrongdoing exists on a spectrum and that different offenses carry different moral weight.

That has never been the point of contention.

For the record, I do not support Al data centers. They could all burn down for all I care. If every LLM shut down tomorrow, nothing in my life would change. I consider Al data centers a blight on the environment, and many communities do not want them built in their areas.

You actually read what I said?

It is insane that this movie exists.

What? All you did cherry pick a super out of context quote and then say the death star is my dad?

Reading your comment was like looking at those first generation llm picture renders where your brain can’t quite make out what it is so it starts hurting.

So basically there’s nothing you can do to refute what I’m saying because it’s all true so you resort to “nuh-uh” with a thesaurus.

😳

Just “upgraded” to win11. The first thing I did was uninstall 365 and copilot. As long as I draw breath I will never use the crap.

O and one drive… Never.

Dang. That’s the one thing I feared the most.

What’s silence! He’s the fucking crypt keeper.

Old! He’s old!

I’ll be happy to provide the update for Sen. McConnell’s condition: HE’S FUCKING OLD! STOP VOTING FOR HIM!

Okay, I’ll address this briefly.

When a human artist paints a painting and sells it, does the estate of Michelangelo receive royalties because that artist was inspired by his work?

The reason you believe LLM training is copyright infringement is that you fundamentally misunderstand how the technology works. That’s a common theme on this platform among people who oppose AI. Many dislike it because it’s become the popular position, not because they understand how these models actually function.

When an AI generates something, it creates a novel output in response to a prompt. It is producing something new, not copying existing works verbatim. Copyright infringement generally requires copying protected expression, and simply learning patterns from publicly available data is not the same thing.

Moreover, you can’t have it both ways. If information is publicly available, then it is available to be read, analyzed, and learned from. Either it’s public, or it isn’t.

More importantly, none of this was the point of my original comment. I’m only addressing it because you clearly want to discuss AI.

For the record, I am completely opposed to what many companies are doing with AI data centers. I think the current trajectory is environmentally damaging, economically questionable, and, in some cases, a humanitarian concern. I’ve said this repeatedly. You’re free to believe me or not, I can’t prove my sincerity, but that has been my position throughout.

Now, would you like to discuss the actual topic of conversation, the two-faced nature of Lemmy?

By that definition nothing is theft unless ruled such by a court. Which funnily also means that if someone takes anything but doesn’t get caught, they haven’t committed theft?
Ergo any corporation powerful enough cannot commit any crimes, due to not being sentenced.

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.

I apologize you are correct I did indeed do that. My intention was not to obfuscate this interaction I apologize.

I will point out in closing that Sweden and Norway are not socialist in nature but are socially Democratic countries with deep and vibrant capitalist economies.

I think we’re using the word “wrongdoing” differently.

Theft is the intentional taking of someone else’s property without permission. That is, by definition, a violation of their property rights. In that sense, it is a wrongdoing. Whether that wrongdoing is justified is a separate moral question.

A starving person stealing bread is still committing theft. I may conclude that it is morally justified because preserving a human life outweighs the owner’s property rights. That doesn’t magically transform the act into “not wrongdoing.” It means one wrongdoing is excused by a greater moral obligation.

If we say a morally justified theft is no longer wrongdoing, then we’ve collapsed the distinction between describing an act and evaluating it. Every action we personally approve of would cease to be wrongdoing by definition, which makes the term lose much of its usefulness.

So I agree that context matters. I agree that there are degrees of moral culpability. But justification doesn’t change what the act is. It changes how we judge the person who committed it.

You’re equivocating between two different questions: whether an act is justified and what the act is.

Yes, context matters when determining whether an action is morally or legally justified. Self-defense, necessity, and defense of others are all examples. I have never argued otherwise.

What I’ve been arguing is that context does not redefine the underlying act itself. If someone intentionally takes property without permission, that’s theft. It may be justified theft, just as killing in self-defense is still killing and, in many legal systems, would technically satisfy the actus reus of homicide while being legally excused or justified.

That’s why “a starving person stealing bread” is a classic moral dilemma. It’s compelling precisely because it’s still theft, even if most people agree it’s morally justified.

So when people celebrate the theft of construction materials simply because they dislike AI data centers, they’re making a moral argument, not changing the definition of theft. If they want to say, “I think this theft is justified,” that’s a coherent position. Saying “it’s not theft because I approve of it” is not.

Correct you don’t. And yet people are. Which was the point of my original comment.

Okay. Something being wrong or correct isn’t the same as the thing justified.