Yaqub_W

The more people join in and become dependent on CF, the more incentive there is to subvert CF. Or am I being dumb?

Another thing is the motivation to send people to work for CF. And another thing is the question of preparation vs hope.

Are you, by chance, an operative, sir? :)

Much easier to press a key twice than to hunt for é for most people. I get your point though

Pros: none

Content label doesn't transform the content. It just provides a false sense of category.

I still have to think critically whether there is a label or not.

Cons: New ways for sociopaths for corruption, embezzlement and censorship.

That is my point.

This idea that legislation has no downsides is extremely naive and borderline retarded. Look at proposed legislation from the point of someone who wants to destroy everything. Does it provide a path to that goal? Is the risk worth it?

Every government grows over time and produces more and more suffering while consuming more and more wealth. I recommend reading The Gulag Archipelago. Your thinking seems to be dangerously naive to you and people around you.

I'm OK with it if no action is taken when content is not labeled and public officials work for free.

Label doesn't prove anything. It just provides a false sense of certainty.

Can you elaborate? I have hard time seeing nihilism here. (there may be language barrier and/or definition issue at play - maybe?)

With definition of nihilism along the lines of `the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless`

The point I am making (or trying to) is quite the opposite. Bureaucrats seem to be introducing more violence and even more problems while resolving none. I still have to critically about the content I consume regardless of it having some label. But now tax money goes towards this instead of the things citizens voted for.

No issues with people thinking anything. Big issues with people using violence and death threats enforcing their image of the world though.

As long as it's privately or voluntarily funded and no violence or coercion is used, then I don't really care.

I think there is no alternative that yields good results.

Legacy media uses the argument that consumer already expects to be lied to and knows the content is for entertainment (TV news for example). I feel the same about AI content.

Or should I be expected to blindly trust everything? I already have to critically think and filter everything already so why the distinction? I should try harder for some content and not another? Especially as AI gets better the distinction between AI and no-AI generated content gets blurrier.

All I see is bureaucrats trying to grab more power over people's decisions and more money embezzled. Unelected people forcing rules on their subjects.

"It is a matter not only of customer protection, it’s also a matter of democracy protection."

Ensuring democracy by selectively censoring. I feel safer already.

I better put AI label on every video I make as there is already AI in the supply chain of all the tech I use. All content contains AI now.

Let's talk about AI commissars who will decide which company will survive. In fact, let's create a few an NGOs to help! NGO will tell commissar what he wants to hear, NGO will get rewarded and allowed to exist!

I doubt EU will survive the next decade or two without major crisis or war tbh.

Edit: Instead of downvoting, how about you try retorting? I don't think I'm incorrect here. But maybe I am!

How about letting humans participate, not just LLMs.

If you use PSD (profile-sync-daemon or similar) to mount browser profiles to RAM to lessen SSD/NVMe wear. This might be an issue for you.