TranscendentalEmpire

but is not relevant to the topic at hand.

The belief that indulging in AI created child porn relieves the sexual deviant behaviour of being attracted to actual minors utilizes the cathartic theory. The cathartic theory is typically understood to relate to an array of emotions, not just anger. "Further, the catharsis hypothesis maintains that aggressive or sexual urges are relieved by "releasing" aggressive or sexual energy, usually through action or fantasy. "

follows the same patterns as aggression. that's a pretty big claim! i'd like to see a source that supports that claim.

That's not a claim I make, it's a claim that cathartic theory states. As I said the cathartic hypothesis is a byproduct of Freudian psychology, which has largely been debunked.

Your issue is with the theory in and of itself, which my claim is already stating to be problematic.

but is also entirely off-topic...

No, you are just conflating colloquial understanding of catharsis with the psychological theory.

Lol, my source is about the cathartic hypothesis. So your theory is that it doesn't work with anger, but does work for sexual deviancy?

Do you have a source that supports that?

Catharsis theory predicts that venting anger should get rid of it and should therefore reduce subsequent aggression. The present findings, as well as previous findings, directly contradict catharsis theory (e.g., Bushman et al., 1999; Geen & Quanty, 1977). For reduc- ing anger and aggression, the worst possible advice to give people is to tell them to imagine their provocateur’s face on a pillow or punching bag as they wallop it, yet this is precisely what many pop psychologists advise people to do. If followed, such advice will only make people angrier and more aggressive.

Source

But there's a lot more studies who have essentially said the same thing. The cathartic hypothesis is mainly a byproduct of the Freudian era of psychology, where hypothesis mainly just sounded good to someone on too much cocaine.

Do you have a source of studies showing the opposite?

Currently even if they used voice clips to train a model on her voice it wouldn't be illegal.

I think that's currently the point of contention....

That isn't currently the case, since they say they used an other actress that sounds like her anyways.

That's what they're claiming, but it's not like open AI doesn't have a pretty well documented history of lying.

No! Just like she doesn't deserve to own the four chord progressions that make up her songs.

There's a difference between common chord progressions and plagiarizing someone's voice and performance. You are the only person conflating the two.

This is why none of this is copyrightable. There are two many people that have similar voices

I think their intent is pretty clear. They didn't want a similar voice, they wanted her voice. After failing at getting her consent, they proceeded anyways.

and too many songs that use similar chord progressions.

There's actual precedent on how similar songs can be to each other without giving credit. Simple chord progressions aren't copyrightable, but how those chord progressions are performed are.

Your fantasy where this empowers small time artists is just that, a fantasy.

Lol, if they are able to plagiarize art from millionaires, what's the chance there's going to be any kind of protections for small artist?

If we push and they come out with new laws that make these things copyrightable, you just end up with corporations owning all of it.

We don't have to come out with laws banning chord progressions, that's just a strawman argument you erected yourself. We just need to apply the laws we currently have to AI companies. If Sony had tried to get her to dress like black widow and do a commercial and she refused. And if they then proceeded to hire an actress who looked like her, dressed the actress in a black skin tight suit, and gave her a red wig..... We'd be dealing with a hefty lawsuit, even if they claimed it wasn't supposed to be SJ.

Well that, and the idea of cathartic relief is increasingly being dispelled. Behaviour once thought to act as a pressure relief for harmful impulsive behaviour is more than likely just a pattern of escalation.

I think they're both pretty similar. The main difference being that one is being played from a shitty phone speaker and recorded by a camera and the other is coming from studio quality audio.

Not really an admition of guilt like the article makes it seem.

You don't need an admission of guilt to lose in court. The fact that they pursued her permission up until 2 days before the release, even after being assured the client did not wish for them to utilize her voice, is pretty damning.

I don't think scar jo deserves to own the whole spectrum her voice belongs to just because she voiced an AI in one movie.

What's the difference between this and an AI releasing a Taylor Swift album? Does Taylor Swift deserve to own a whole spectrum of voice?

Voice acting is still an art, and artists deserve to be paid for their contributions. If she has performed an awfully in Her, would they still want to mimic her voice? If Her hadn't been made, would they have come up with the voice and personality out of the blue?

No, because it's art, and AI is just an advanced copying machine. Open AI is just the newest attempt to leverage artists and workers from their group bargaining power. It's the scab of the future, but with more carbon emissions.

Ahh yes, because a recent increase in interest from investors over nuclear power = decades of fossil fuels companies lobbying against alternative sources for energy production is erased overnight.

Not sure anyone would sign off on sending potential dirty bombs into space.

At least not anymore.... We did a successful test of a nuclear powered ramjet in the 60's with project Neptune. But I guess that was before people were afraid of dirty bombs welded into the shape of cruise missiles.

by your own words, there's no safe way to get rid of nuclear waste besides storing it and hoping things will work out.

I think you're purposely misconstruing the meaning of safe. I think deep isolation is a proven method of safely storing radioactive material until it decays.

You are claiming it's unsafe, or "kicking the can down the road", but haven't explained your reasoning. Perhaps if you had any examples of how deep isolation has failed, or ways you think it will fail, it may strengthen your argument

Also, nuclear plants would take as long to build as other, safer methods.

Again, you are claiming things are safer, but haven't explained how? All forms of energy production have their positive and negative attributes, however safety isn't really a problem usually attributed to nuclear energy.

Time is generally an actual criticism of nuclear power, but a lot of length of time isn't really inherent in the actual construction of the power plant, which can be completed in as little as 3-5 years. It's usually the same problem as your first claim, the governments inability to deal with NIMBY campaigns and private interest.

it's kicking the can down the road.

Why? And what would be the alternative?

Even if we don't start relying on more nuclear power, nuclear waste is still going to be produced. Even if it's just maintaining the nuclear power we have right now, or just dealing with an aging nuclear arms cache.

I don't see how kicking it down the road is really a problem in this scenario, as that's pretty much all you can do with nuclear waste, wait until it's not dangerous.

Improving the power grid would increase the available supply without causing problems.

That's kinda a general statement..... Part of improving the power grid could be interpreted as including more nuclear power.

The imperative in this scenario isn't just making sure we're not "causing problems", it's moving towards a power source that minimizes our dependence on fossil fuels.

It's "kicking the can down the road" vs ecological collapse.

We know what to do with it, the same thing countries like France do, deep isolation.

The problem with America, is the same problem we have for any federal level infrastructure. The states have too much control and are prone to NIMBY campaigns.