Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@qoto.org

@cholling @mattcjordan @carnage4life

> Because a human artist doesn't reproduce works they "trained" on verbatim

Except, yes, they can, and often do. There has historically been an entire industry dedicated to this.

> humans can't get away with "building upon others" if the results are too similar to the original

Which is clearly true of AIs as well, since they keep tweaking the algorithms to avoid that and produce more unique outputs.

> hundreds of ways generative AI differs from human thought

Of course it's not the exact same, but from a legal perspective, I don't see enough of a difference to require separate rules. I also don't see enough of a difference to classify only one of the two as "theft". Seems that label would apply equally to both or neither.

@mattcjordan @carnage4life How can you consider generative AI to be a thief, but not the artists themselves, who have been building their own work upon other art for centuries?

@dragonfrog @nus@mstdn.social If I recall correctly, an FFL has an obligation to reject the purchase if they have probable cause to suspect the customer is not legally permitted to buy the gun. Including, but not limited to, failing their background check. Those guys take those rules seriously, because the ATF isn't afraid to pull their license.

@nus@mstdn.social @dragonfrog And that part of the law needs to be changed; you won't find me defending it.

I would also love to see a carve-out for recovery (i.e. the cops will confiscate and store your guns when you go into rehab, but once you've completed the program, they give them back).

@dragonfrog @nus@mstdn.social If they manage to buy the gun despite being an addict? Yeah. Same as how you'll spend more time in jail if you T-bone another car while drunk than while sober.

I guess it does have some preventative effect though... in that it provides a small barrier at an FFL to allow a dealer to reject a customer with a history of drug abuse or who appears to be actively strung-out. And it also allows relatives of the person to report that they're addicted and own a gun to authorities *before* they cause harm.

@dragonfrog @nus@mstdn.social If you harm or murder someone while under the influence of drugs, then you're long past the point of just needing addiction treatment.

Criminal laws are about enforcing punishments for crime after it's been committed, not preventing or reducing crime. There are other programs for that.

@dragonfrog @nus@mstdn.social Right, it basically just provides an enforcement mechanism for after-the-fact, but it's a federal crime, so you still don't want to be charged with it.

@dragonfrog @nus@mstdn.social Not the way it's currently implemented. You have to self-report on the background check when you buy a gun. If you're actively addicted to a substance, you shouldn't be buying guns. If you own a gun already, then there's nothing preventing you from seeking help.

@Extra_Special_Carbon IMO, the government forcing anyone, gun owners or pregnant women, to submit to medical testing without specific probable cause is pretty fucked up and Orwellian.