I mean, if animals engage in pretend fights and other forms of play, it seems that they can on some level grasp the idea of practicing or doing something for fun.

BDSM is not vegan, then? Can I get an expert’s opinion?

But the reader does not steal, the clear logical conclusion is that piracy isn’t theft if you read the book.

You fool, you utter buffoon, by doing this you increase entropy even more!

(and by “doing this” I mean doing literally anything)

Just a heads up: when people of Christian inclinations say “natural” it can often mean “as god intended” or “the way things should be” instead of “occurring in nature”

A lot of people are confused each time “naturalness” is brought up, not realizing that Christians mean something completely different. Of course you argument above makes sense, but it completely misses the point.

And yes, it’s the person who makes the argument that’s at fault for using some dumb-ass apologetics-loaded meaning of the word, but I wish more people were aware of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

So say we all

Somehow this comic accurately describes our reality:

Until now I was under the impression that this was the goal of these notices:

If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

Because if an LLM ingests a comment with a copyright notice like that, there’s a chance it will start appending copyright notices to it’s own responses, which could technically, legally, maybe make the AI model CC BY-NC-SA 4.0? A way to “poison” the dataset, so that OpenAI is obliged to distribute it’s model under that license. Obviously there’s no chance of that working, but it draws attention to AI companies breaking copyright law.

(also, I have no clue about copyrights)