Instead of reflecting on your digital privacy as such, it’s probably more efficient to the overall goal to work on developing your IRL social network and getting to a place of emotional security. Less time spent online seeking a cure for loneliness means a smaller digital footprint.
What you personally believe isn’t really important. You should look at research around obesity intervention from the NIH and other international institutions. This is a well-researched field.
What are you even attempting to prove with this? That fat people are bad because their nurses may get injured from handling them? You really need to reflect on your own motivation in this moment.
I feel like I reasonably addressed the basic issue. I don’t think someone can gain literal weight without eating more calories than they consume, because that is how thermodynamics work. But it’s not always as straightforward as over eating, and it doesn’t always feel like over eating. For example, common cases of obesity in the US are due to a high amount of hyper processed foods that are calorie dense but don’t feel filling. Fat people don’t gorge themselves every meal, they eat what feels like a regular amount to sate their hunger. That’s why semaglutides are so effective, they make you feel hungry less and full faster. And shame based approaches at making people eat less have been proven not to work, because they don’t teach them to choose better foods or make them feel less hungry.
Fat isn’t necessarily just about CICO. Someone might have a disorder causing them to store more fat than, for example, build muscle. You might have a thyroid disorder causing you to feel lethargic despite the fact that you ate a BMR level of calories, so you end up storing the remaining energy as fat. Not even getting into the variety of ways human behavior is illogical and can’t reasonably be answered with “just eat less.” Treatment for eating disorders is not like that.
The parent comment provided tons of scientific research providing evidence towards the fact that shame doesn’t motivate weight loss and that epigenetic factors play a key difference in obesity. You laid out a few theoreticals to explain why actually, a fat person I made up in my mind doesn’t have to be fat because they can just stop eating.
The irony being that despite the ironclad argument you wrote, they’ll still irrationally judge fat people for their weight.
Yes morals won’t keep you afloat. But FAANG, military defense contractors, and the other most terrible industries waaaay overpay on cost of living, and other industries are also looking to compensate well for expertise (minus some compensation for all the exploitation you wouldn’t be contributing to).
What you’re describing is the development of a paranoid conservative mindset in response to traumatic global events. This is how my conservative Fox News brainrot parents describe the world, and they are the type to own guns because they’re deathly afraid of home intruders even though their city’s crime index is among the best in the country.
Very big window between participating in society via capitalism vs working directly for, eg. FAANG or a military defense contractor. It’s leaping over every less shitty option to get to the end because that’s what pays best. How funny that I considered writing a pre-reply for this exact comic in my original comment.
If you have the skillset and CV to work at Meta, you have a choice to work somewhere slightly lower on the scale of exploitation.
I don’t get it. Are you rejecting science as a tool for discerning truth? Did you even read my post? Because I did answer your question about the 90%.
I’m not fine with 90%, but 90% is significantly more reassuring and evidence-based than 0%. And if measuring that last 10% would mean some type of logistical nightmare, then we can act with relative assurance on a 90% likelihood. If you didn’t know, that’s how every fucking scientific test works. P-value of 0.1.
Pareto principle, 80% of the effect is determined by 20% of the variables. To get “all of the data” on an open ended question would be fruitless, but you can be reasonably sure of a theory the more evidence corroborates it. Nothing can ever truly be known in a Platonic sense, but the basis of science is in "most likely"s.
😭 I feel like I’ve had this argument shot for shot. The Internet poetry of it all is astounding.
Inshallah it shall be done
Hm yeah on second look the images aren’t as comparable as I expected. I just saw the general composition in the thumbnails and assumed more similarity. I do think they probably prompted the original artist in the generated work, though, which kind of led to my thoughts in my op.
AI can absolutely produce copyrighted content if it’s prompted to. Name drop an artist in Midjourney and you will be able to prompt their style - see this list of artists and prompted images. So you can just tweak the settings a bit to heavily weight their name, generally describe the composition of the work you’re looking to approximate, and you can absolutely produce something close to their original works.
The image is wrong because the original artwork is not stolen. It is part of a dataset by LAION (or another similar dataset, basically a text-image pair where the image is linked at its original source). To train the imagegen, its company had to download a temporary copy, which is exempt from infringement by copyright law. There is no original artwork somewhere in a database accessible by Midjourney, just the numerical relationship generated by the image-text pair it learned from.
On the other hand, AI can obviously produce content in violation of copyright - like here. But that’s specifically being prompted by the user. You can see other examples of this with Grok generating Mickey Mouse and Simpsons characters. As of right now, copyright violations are the legal responsibility of the users generating the content - not the AI itself.
There’s a small, relatively low value market of commissioned online art that has been and will continue to be impacted. People who may have paid $50-60 for a (furry) OC will start going to AI image gens as the process becomes more refined and allows them to add detail to the end result without much effort.
Just be at peace with the trades that you have to make with digital privacy to live your life. There are a lot of doomers in this sphere who will tell you that it’s worthless unless you go full Luddite. What you’re experiencing is less of a sober observation of digital privacy and more of reflection of your current emotional state. Just my 2c.