They’re lying about the rule itself to justify more lies

They know they can’t reliably distinguish AI from non-AI by the individual piece of content, and they’re pretending otherwise so they can silence actual humans and let chat bots propagate while labeling them as human or AI

They’re outnumbered and outgunned.

Let’s change that by continuing to offer them all the support we can.

Too big for what? Haven’t been any requirements to print money for like 55 years

How do you know the authorities won’t just keep printing money for them?

Don’t forget to thank platforms like Bluesky that make people think discussing suicide is some kind of taboo / policy violation and you’ll get banned if you bring it up on social media

Guy might not have known he can literally just discuss it in a place with reasonable enough rules like the fediverse

Incorrect, the problem isn’t that it’s not thorough, the problem is it’s an abusive gaslighting lie designed to support other lies, abuses, and gaslighting.

And if you want to talk to me without being civil, I suggest nostr, there are no bans there.

Sorry for my hostile tone

Still somewhat easy

Either lying or deluded. Maybe you’ve only heard the least realistic sounding algorithmic music or something

I’m honest about use of chat bots, it’s not actual AI or a brag.

But not everyone is so honest. The point is to be able to filter people like me, filter some other random people, and let through the preferred chat bots of the authorities while pretending they’re humans.

You do realize that people can still tell when slop is passed as music

In the past, but what about the future? Or even the present?

And the only reason it’s so prevalent on spotify and whatever other corpo platforms is because it’s used to pay artists who upload there less, right?

Sounds right, yeah, but what does it have to do with what I said?

This literally has the same effect as simply banning AI content you are complaining about

You’re definitely trolling

For a global feed? No, as far as I know nobody has one yet

For individual feeds? Yes, “web of trust”

You add a “verified human” tag to any users you’ve met face-to-face

Then you can filter by

• Your tagged humans
• Tagged human by you or those you follow
• Tagged human by you, those you follow, or those they follow

Etc.

And the focus should be on filtering bots and ensuring accountability, not trying to stop people from posting “AI”

You can still post incorrect shit generated by chatGPT, but if you want to show up in filtered feeds, you have to be an actual human saying chatGPT’s incorrect shit with your own face’s reputation on the line

This is much better than pretending it’s possible to prove what is or isn’t “AI” as an excuse to later pretend some AI posts aren’t and some non-AI posts are

Any of them could go to some private corporation and make just as much, if not more. So, nonprofits have to pay competitively or only afford CEOs willing to take the pay cut.

How is that a problem?

Why not hire someone like me instead of someone that wants capitalist omnicide?

To me the real reason it’s a red flag is that nonprofit staff are supposed to file income taxes, and those taxes have funded the Iraq invasion and Guantanamo Bay and starvation in Gaza and subsidies for the oil industry and shit, but there are other ways to divert that money through the nonprofit with tax exemption.

So if I was the CEO of that nonprofit why tf would I ever take a big salary when I actually want to help the world survive, not ruin it like some corporate asshole?

Seems like a signal that someone like me isn’t allowed to be CEO of a nonprofit like that because I’ve done everything I can to avoid paying these warlord taxes instead of being part of some rich people money laundering club

They serve 30,000+ libraries in 100+ countries according to Wikipedia, sounds like it might involve a lot of staff

They might be leeches but on the other hand you might be underestimating how much work goes into trying to keep library databases accurate

I assume it’s a ransom argument.

WorldCat supports libraries -> “we” will hurt libraries if you Anna’s Archive people don’t stop -> this means you Anna’s Archive people are in conflict with WorldCat’s mission

Maybe when you’re a little older you’ll understand why at this time we should all be attracting as much “smoke” from the authorities as we can

To put it simply, they don’t have enough for all of us

So if you state the values of your platform that makes it OK to lie?

I ask again when people will learn this is a dumb approach

Meaning all music the creator admits was made with AI

Wonder when people will learn this is a dumb approach

What did you think I said? Are you illiterate?