belviewreview

"is subjective" if you are saying that it varies from person to person, I agree. What is am saying is that anyone with an ounce of intelligence can predict that certain materials will produce sexual feelings in a certain existing class of people, namely pedophiles. The fact that you have not directly denied this indicates that you know I am right but don't want to admit it.

As far as an argument for why this is bad, I produced it in my first comment, and you have not responded to it.

I think that we have both made our positions clear to anyone who has been reading this comment thread, so I am not going to reply to any future comments you might make, and I will just leave it up to people to dedide for themselves which of us is right.

So your saying that people who use ai to generate videos of children having sex with adults don't realize it would sexually stimulate a certain class of viewers?

Someone who produces materials that produce sexual feelings in a large proportion of people but didn't realize that would happen is an idiot. There is no way to protect idiots from negative consequences for their actions.

Certain materials are designed to produce sexual feelings. And I am not saying that having the thoughts is or should be a crime, though I think that having them is morally wrong.

Outlawing materials that are designed to produce pedophilic thoughts and consistently do so for some people is a way for society to say that such thoughts are wrong. I think part of being a responsible human being is controlling ones own thoughts to some ways.

Outlawing AI CSAM is basically outlawing people from having certain types of sexual thoughts and feeling. In the case of materials that produce pedophilic sexual thoughts and feelings, I think it is legitimate to outlaw them.

A problem with long articles is there are so many important topics to be informed about today, and if I spend an hour on one, then I don't have time for others.

Ok, that makes more sense.

You don't deny that if a donor is ideologically oriented, then there is a danger that it will pressure Tor to engage in censorship. I assume that is because you know you don't have any good arguments that this would not happen, just that it is difficult to avoid having ideologically-oriented donors.

Human general intelligence is physically based on cells that have a sort of cellular intelligence, due to their anatomical and chemical construction.

This is on contrast with artificial intelligence, which down at the atomic and microscopic level has a radically different design. The question is if artificial general intelligence is possible with that sort of atomic and microscopic design. I say no.

Some people here are defending Mullvad's political position. But the point is that a project devoted to free speech as such shouldn't be associated with a political, ideological group that favors one set of publicly presented ideas and strongly condemns another set.

The danger is that if the Tor network gets very dependent on Mullvad, then Mullvad might pressure it to make the network censor ideas it doesn't like.

Correct. Books talk as if atomic theory was accepted from early on in the modern era, but actually through the 19th century many prominent physicists and chemists considered it to be unproven speculation, and one reason is the theory lacked specific sizes and masses for atoms. Einstein's analysis persuaded people because it provided these and furthermore numerical predictions that fit the observed data.

That's very interesting. But am I right that means when you start out, you don't whether you are going to end up with a big excess of left or right, just that it will be one of them?

Batteries keep getting more energy-dense, so likely one of these days electric trucks won't weight any more.

I once read an article by a fellow from China who said that for many centuries the country had a set of social norms from Confucianism and traditional Chinese culture. But he said this was all abolished during the Cultural Revolution. An example was traditional values stressed piety toward ones parents, but during the Cultural Revolution children reported their parents to the government, which often punished them harshly.

The fellow said that when the Cultural Revolution ended, the culture never went back to the old values, and didn't have anything to replace them. so since then it has been every person, or at least every family, for itself.

Fake math? Does he know that all the electric circuits in the equipment that is used to broadcast his program are designed using algebra?