anon_
4d ago
The problem with this kind of "overlapping questions" claim is that it resists actually being pinned down.
Moreover, I think most of it fails the TDWP test. Certainly Anna Wintour didn't consent to having a fictional depiction of her in a book/movie. It probably contributed a lot to her reputation, possibly rising to the level of harm.
anon_
5d ago
I'm having a real time figuring out what your mental model is here.
Wouldn't TDWP also cause a realistic-seeming image of a real person in the viewers' mind that is nevertheless fictional?
anon_
5d ago
So on this theory if these images had a visible watermark (or other signifier) saying “AI GENERATED” then all the controversy would be extinguished?
anon_
6d ago
Ultimately this is also why I don't see how Onlyfans continues to exist as a business model for flesh-and-blood women after this year.
I found a couple of fully-AI generated insta accounts, some with moderately convincing short videos.
Unfortunately for them, there are still tells. For example, in one (I can find the link) the model's birthmark kept moving around her body. Or lighting ends up a bit off.
anon_
6d ago
Disingenuous, unless you think the concept of, say, drawing a picture of Taylor Swift is incoherent. You can generally tell whether a picture is of Taylor Swift, and among people who know her the same is presumably true of this girl.
Sure. Just like Devil Wears Prada is a fictional work that is nevertheless unmistakably about Anna Wintour.
Drawing a picture of Taylor Swift isn't a photograph. It's is not a depiction of something that really happened. You can draw a picture of Taylor Swift wearing a swastika-emblazoned sombrero while she drowns a puppy. Also fictional.
anon_
6d ago
Sure, artists rendition. And no one was beating artists up for unauthorized portraiture.
anon_
6d ago
This is so remarkably and verifiably wrong. The principal of a public school is a State employee. The bill of rights is incorporated against the states by the 14A. The courts have for decades said that students don't categorically lose those rights in school. This is all stuff you can just look up.
anon_
6d ago
Boys at her school shared AI-generated, nude images of her.
Which is it? Either it's an image of her, or it's an AI generated image.
It seems like as a society we're going to have to learn how to distinguish photos of actual people and AI generated images that are amalgamations of many different people. Just like literature always had thinly-veiled fictional accounts of recognizable people we're going have synthetic images that resemble real people.
anon_
9d ago
Of course. But that preferred policy can break down when enough culturally significant folks take notice and acknowledge the mountain of evidence. Then everyone else on the left is allowed to notice and acknowledge the facts.
And I very much doubt that there aren't enough normies left in MN to vote Walz out -- he only won 52-45.
anon_
9d ago
I meant work instrumentally -- that works for Walz (et al) only for as long as the only people reporting it are whistleblowers and racists on the internet. Now that it's on the NYT, it no longer works for him to just ignore it or continue to try to quash the story.
anon_
10d ago
In a hopeful-ish development, there appears to be an actual constituency and awareness within the left for the proposition that "allowing fraud undermines the support for the social programs we like".
anon_
10d ago
Normally, "sanctions" refers to laws a state makes which restrict its own citizens, residents, businesses etc. (including foreign-owned businesses operating on its territory) from doing business with the sanctioned country, and increasingly to laws which restrict its banks from financing (even indirectly) transactions to and from the sanctioned country.
There are also secondary sanctions: US entities cannot do business with an entity in a third country that does business with a sanctioned entity.
The ship is "subject to seizure" as a matter of US law, because the US made a law which applies outside its territory. As a matter of international law, it probably isn't.
Well, you'd hope that the US government follows its own laws first.
anon_
11d ago
Yeah, and those are not "to a criminal standard", they are "to a civil standard".
In many cases, they can be levied administratively (e.g. by members of the executive branch) and it's on the individual fined to bring a challenge in court (at their own expense).
anon_
11d ago
You guys are confusing civil asset forfeiture, in which the US files a suit in rem and merely fining someone, in which the US files a suit against the defendant.
anon_
11d ago
unless the fact that they acted illegally can be proven to a criminal standard, the worst that can happen to them is that the proceeds of their acting in a dodgy way can be taken away from them
I don't think I agree with the premise here. In the US, at an administrative/civil level you can be fined. That is not "to a criminal standard" (beyond a reasonable doubt) it's to a much lower civil standard (preponderance of evidence) and has far fewer procedural safeguards. For example, in a civil suit, even defending against the government, one isn't entitled to a free lawyer.
With a proper civil asset forfeiture scheme you can have rules like "if we prove to a certain standard that you did something bad then we're not just going to take the money you made through your illegal actions, we'll also come after a portion of the rest of the wealth you own"
That sounds very sensible. It also exists, and we call it "civil enforcement". And there is virtually no limit to the fines that can be exacted this way -- although the Court has set some outer limits. See, e.g. Timbs v Indiana and US v Bajakajian
anon_
11d ago
What sort of actual beneficial policies would be prohibited by the 5A?
Also, it's "cannot be seized except for a public purpose and after paying just compensation". That's a fairly big omission IMO.
anon_
11d ago
Um, yeah? Venezuela is not, in fact, part of the US. US law does not apply in Venezuela.
But US law does apply to US firms, and those firms are prohibited from assisting Venezuela in any way. The target of this statement is the former, not the latter.
anon_
11d ago
That's correct, the jury is told they cannot convict for both before their deliberation.
Which I think undermines the idea that the jury is gonna be mad about charging both, because it's not framed as two separate convictions that might both be applied, but two possible convictions of which at most one will be applied.
anon_
12d ago
If you thought it was 80% likely, you can get a spread of buy options for various times/prices. The loss (and gain) is completely bounded up front.
Does the accusation of character-assassination necessarily require falsehood? Specifically, if the film portrayed the non-famous 13YO as shithead but was reasonably accurate, does that still count in your mind?
We've gone around and around and I still can't understand what are the necessary and sufficient conditions that you have in mind.
More options
Context Copy link