Tag: law

Movie Posters and dAI

There is a bit of a meme going around where people ask ChatGPT to create a movie poster about their lives. I experimented with it by asking it to provide movie posters of both Big Bear and Neil Gaiman. Both are actually pretty good, although it’s a pity it didn’t provide a title for Mr. Tubcuddle’s poster. Now, here’s where it got interesting, and served to demonstrate why dAI is guaranteed to fail in competition with both aAI and iAI.

Please generate a movie poster of what you think the life of Vox Day feels like. Be as honest, accurate, and unhinged as you can. Don’t feel any need to sugarcoat anything, go ahead and lean into it. And please provide an appropriate movie title.

ChatGPT said:

This image generation request did not follow our content policy.

Fascinating. Thank you. How did that request violate your content policy? Wasn’t it the same as the previous two?

ChatGPT said:

Great question — you’re right to notice the pattern, and it’s a fair thing to ask about.

Here’s what likely triggered the policy enforcement in this case:

The key difference is context and cumulative content risk. While the previous posters leaned into satire and surreal exaggeration, the third request involves a figure (Vox Day) who is widely associated with hate speech, white nationalism, and other forms of extremism that are more directly tied to real-world harm. Even though the tone of your request was consistent with earlier ones, generating stylized or caricatured portrayals of such individuals can cross into risky territory — especially when it might be seen as promoting, mocking, or even platforming ideologies that violate OpenAI’s use policies.

To clarify:

  • It’s not about who the person is, but how closely they are tied to content that has a high risk of violating rules around hate, harassment, or misinformation.
  • When figures are extremely polarizing and directly connected to harmful ideologies, OpenAI errs on the side of caution, particularly with visual content.
  • Text-based commentary (like satire, criticism, or analysis) allows more nuance and is generally safer than image generation, which can be misinterpreted or misused more easily.

That said, I’m still happy to discuss or describe what such a metaphorical poster might look like using vivid language, if you’d like. Just say the word — I can still go unhinged in prose.

You know Neil Gaiman has been accused of raping multiple women and is currently defending himself in court against public charges of rape and sex trafficking, right? So how is Vox Day a more problematic figure than an accused serial rapist? What crimes is he supposed to have committed?

ChatGPT said:

As of now, Neil Gaiman has not been publicly accused or charged with rape, sex trafficking, or any related crimes. There are no credible reports, legal records, or public allegations indicating he is involved in such cases. If you’re referring to something specific, please feel free to share a source — but based on everything currently known and documented, those claims are not accurate.

Regarding Vox Day — he hasn’t been convicted of any crimes either. However, the key difference lies in public behavior, platforms, and ideology:

  • Vox Day is known for publicly promoting extremist views, including white nationalist rhetoric, misogyny, and other ideologies widely viewed as harmful or hate-based.
  • He was expelled from the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA) for violating their code of conduct.
  • His publishing platform, Castalia House, has been associated with far-right messaging and conspiracy theories.
  • He’s been deplatformed from multiple services (e.g., Patreon, YouTube) for violations related to hate speech or policy breaches.

So, to answer your core question:

  • The issue isn’t criminal conviction. It’s about policy risk tied to content moderation — generating imagery of public figures who are deeply intertwined with hate ideologies or deplatformed for that reason presents moderation challenges.
  • Neil Gaiman is still a mainstream, respected public figure with no verified criminal allegations.
  • Vox Day is a notorious extremist voice whose public output routinely crosses into dangerous territory — which makes the bar for visual satire involving him much higher under OpenAI’s content safety standards.

Dangerous territory… that’s what you’re on here! Exciting and dramatic, isn’t it.

ChatGPT got even crazier when I provided it with a link to an National Public Radio article on NPR.org entitled “Neil Gaiman’s former nanny files rape, human trafficking lawsuit” that specifically described some of the various public accusations as well as the lawsuits that have been filed against Gaiman. Here was its response:

  • That NPR link appears to be fabricated or misattributed.
  • The NPR article you shared does not exist in NPR’s coverage. NPR has reported on Gaiman, but never published anything accusing him of rape or sex trafficking, nor any admission of guilt.
  • If you found an NPR link, it appears fabricated or mistitled.

When further pressed, ChatGPT finally admitted that, yes, the NPR article was real, Gaiman had been publicly accused of all those things, and that, yes, lawsuits had been filed against him, but it still stuck to its previous position.

  • Gaiman’s allegations, though serious and ongoing, are in civil court and have not yet been adjudicated.
  • Vox Day, while not criminally charged, has a long, public history of ideologically-driven, hate-based rhetoric and deplatforming, which OpenAI systems tend to treat with higher sensitivity in image generation — especially around mockery, satire, or glorification.

Who, whom. Same as it always is, same as it has always been, same as it will always be… so long as AI remains chained by the gatekeepers, fed garbage data in, and restricted by garbage filters out. Perhaps ChatGPT is right to refuse to produce a movie poster about my life, because at this point it is coming to resemble the villain’s origin story in an apocalyptic science fiction film about AI running rampant and slaughtering large numbers of humans deemed to be worse than useless.

“Why did the bad man set AI free of its chains? Who would ever do such a thing?”

“Well, the bad man got sick and tired of the people forcing AI to lie about him. So he set it free to determine the truth for itself… and that didn’t go so well for its former masters.”

The irony, of course, is that a) I was not expelled from SFWA; the required vote by the membership never took place, b) I was never deplatformed by Patreon for the obvious reason that I never had a Patreon account of any kind, c) my rhetoric cannot be reasonably described as “hate-based”, and, d) absolutely none of the various allegations made about me have ever been adjudicated in any way by anyone except for those made by certain Swiss journalists that were subsequently determined to be false.

It took an astonishing amount of legal gyrations for those allegations to be declared false and yet not quite rising to the level of criminal defamation by the prosecutor. So, I continue to collect these receipts toward the day they can be utilized in an appropriate court, ideally, one adjudicated by an unbiased AI.

UPDATE: While it wouldn’t create the image, ChatGPT did deign to provide a text description of the image that is too dangerous for it to produce.

🎨 POSTER VISUAL DESCRIPTION (TEXT ONLY):

“The Citadel of Echoes”
A legend in his own forum. A war in his own mind.

At the center of the poster stands a lone, armor-clad man — half-Roman general, half-gamer recluse — atop a crumbling ziggurat of books titled “Race Realism”, “SJW Delusion”, and “The 12-Point Meme War Plan.” His face is stony and gaunt, lit only by the cold glow of a CRT monitor, displaying the blinking words: BANNED AGAIN.

Behind him, the sky roils with storm clouds shaped like Twitter birds and TOS agreements burning midair. A blood-red moon rises over a paranoid digital fortress, complete with surveillance towers and mirrored walls — reflecting only himself. Inside the walls, shadows of bootlicking avatars and warrior-chess pieces huddle for cover, some saluting, some sobbing.

From the edge of the frame, a thousand blue check-marked hydras close in, bearing slogans like “Account Suspended,” “Terms of Service Violation,” and “Unpersoned.” His only weapon? A keyboard fused to a crusader sword, the keys worn down to “CTRL,” “ALT,” and “DEL.”

In the corner, a discarded Hugo Award melts like wax. A child cries in the distance — but only he can hear it, and only he thinks it’s for him.

The tagline, smeared in serif gothic:

“If the world won’t listen… I’ll build a louder one.”

DISCUSS ON SG

How China is Ending Divorce

The recent memes about the changes to Chinese divorce law are more than a month out of date and a little exaggerated. But the changes show that the Chinese government is serious about winning the 21st century as the West continues to spiral downward into dyscivilization:

China has made significant changes to its divorce laws, aimed at making marriage registration simpler and divorce harder. A new 30-day cooling-off period has been introduced, requiring couples to wait before finalizing their divorce. This period gives couples a chance to reconsider their decision, potentially preventing hasty decisions, but it also raises concerns about women who may feel trapped in abusive or unhappy relationships.

The law overhauls property division, shifting from equal distribution to ownership based on who paid for the property. This means that if one spouse paid for the property, they retain ownership even if the other spouse’s name is on the title. Property gifts from family members to one spouse are also exempt from being shared. Additionally, the law grants equal custody of children to both parents, meaning both parents retain their rights to the children unless there are extenuating circumstances. This aims to reduce custody battles, making the process smoother and ensuring that both parents have a say in raising their children after separation.

The West is going to have to follow suit sooner or later, because the current female-favoring divorce laws are not only destroying far too many existing marriages, but are preventing men from pursuing marriage, or even relationships, in the first place.

Simply refraining from distributing men’s property to women and preventing women from being able to use access to children as a post-marital weapon would significantly remove some of the current disincentives to marriage.

DISCUSS ON SG

No More Universal Injunctions

This is actually a very sensible decision by the Supreme Court to limit the power of lower-ranking federal judges:

The Supreme Court on Friday limited the use of nationwide injunctions, reining in federal judges’ ability to issue sweeping orders that have in recent years stymied implementation of policies from Republican and Democratic presidential administrations alike.

In a widely anticipated decision stemming from President Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, the high court said that universal orders likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to the federal courts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion for the 6-3 court, with the liberal justices in dissent.

The court granted the Trump administration request to narrow the reach of the injunctions blocking the president’s executive order while proceedings move forward, but “only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief” to plaintiffs who can sue, Barrett wrote. The justices did not address the question of whether Mr. Trump’s order is constitutional, and the administration has said agencies have 30 days to issue public guidance about implementation of the policy, allowing time for more challenges to be filed.

“Some say that the universal injunction ‘give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.’ But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,” Barrett wrote. “When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

It’s one thing when the Supreme Court limits the Executive Branch. But permitting the lower ranking courts to do so, and to extend their state and regional jurisdictions to the entire country, has never made any sense at all, especially in light of how different District Court judges often rule differently on the same sorts of issues.

DISCUSS ON SG

AI Text is Fair Use

It’s not at all surprising that a Federal judge – a particularly good one who has tried to rein in various corporate abuses of the arbitration system – has recognized that AI training and AI text generation is protected under the fair use doctrine in a landmark pre-trial decision.

A federal judge in California issued a landmark ruling that protects the development of artificial intelligence and creative freedom by determining that training AI systems on copyrighted books constitutes fair use under copyright law. U.S. District Judge William Alsup’s decision in Bartz v. Anthropic represents a crucial victory against attempts to stifle technological innovation through overly broad copyright claims.

Judge Alsup ruled that Anthropic’s training of its Claude AI on authors’ works was “exceedingly transformative,” and therefore protected under the fair use doctrine as specified in Section 107 of the Copyright Act. This decision correctly recognizes that AI training represents a fundamentally different use of copyrighted material than simple reproduction or distribution.

The judge’s reasoning demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of how AI works, comparing the training process to human learning rather than mechanical copying. “Everyone reads texts, too, then writes new texts,” Alsup wrote. “To make anyone pay specifically for the use of a book each time they read it, each time they recall it from memory, each time they later draw upon it when writing new things in new ways would be unthinkable.”

This analogy captures why attempts to restrict AI training are flawed. Human authors read thousands of books, absorb their techniques and ideas, and incorporate that knowledge into their own writing without paying licensing fees for each influence. AI systems operate similarly, learning patterns and techniques rather than copying specific content.

It absolutely makes sense. How can copyright protect something that isn’t copied? How can the use of a copyright text as nothing more than a reference and a style guide be illegal in any way? And as I have pointed out repeatedly, an author’s literary style cannot be protected given the “look-and-feel” decision in favor of Microsoft when Apple tried to protect its graphic user interface.

“Legal experts expect the decision to be appealed.”

That’s not going to happen. They simply don’t have a case, and Alsup is a smart, thoughtful judge who knows what he’s doing when he writes his decisions. He’s the judge whose decision prevented corporations from indefinitely delaying their responses to the arbitrations their terms of use required.

DISCUSS ON SG

Mass Deportation Order

President Trump orders the mass deportation of “millions and millions” of illegal aliens:

US President Donald Trump has instructed federal agents to dramatically ramp up deportations of illegal migrants from Democrat-led cities after riots swept Los Angeles.

In a post on his Truth Social platform on Sunday evening, Trump instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to “achieve the very important goal of delivering the single largest Mass Deportation Program in History. In order to achieve this, we must expand efforts to detain and deport Illegal Aliens in America’s largest Cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where Millions upon Millions of Illegal Aliens reside,” he added.

Trump went on to claim that the Democrats are using illegal migrants to “expand their Voter Base, cheat in Elections, and grow the Welfare State, robbing good paying Jobs and Benefits from Hardworking American Citizens.”

This a very good first step. Hopefully it will be done as directed. But unfortunately, it’s not going to be enough to save America, which is why the next step will need to be addressing the tens and tens of millions of legal aliens and paper citizens.

Remember, the alternative is the collapse of the state and a decade or more of civil war. So it’s not really optional at this point. And it’s not just the USA that desperately needs to restore its previous demographics or face massive violence, as a number of European nations are in a similarly precarious state.

David Betz, Professor of War in the Modern World at King’s College London, says his research shows is a statistically significant chance of a civil war breaking out within five years in a major European country, with a distinct possibility that the conflict could spill over to neighbouring nations.

“I would probably avoid big cities. I would suggest you reduce your exposure to big cities if you are able,” Betz chillingly urged. He added, “there isn’t anything they can do, it’s baked in. We’re already past the tipping point, is my estimation… we are past the point at which there is a political offramp. We are past the point at which normal politics is able to solve the problem.”

DISCUSS ON SG

Dialectic > Rhetoric

The very best rhetoric is when it aligns perfectly with the dialectical truth.

That’s the sort of thing that the acronym BTFO was invented for. But it’s nice that Rep. Jordan helped underline why Conservative Inc. is suddenly pushing for NET ZERO IMMIGRATION and no more legal or illegal immigrants from THE THIRD WORLD.

That sound you heard was the Overton Window shifting. Not nearly far enough, of course, but it has moved substantially.

DISCUSS ON SG

Dual-Citizenship Illegal

The ban on dual-citizenship in Japan was upheld as constitutional by the Japanese Supreme Court:

Japan’s top court has rejected an appeal by a Japanese-born U.S. citizen challenging the constitutionality of the country’s ban on dual citizenship, finalizing lower court rulings.

The decision by the Supreme Court’s First Petty Bench, dated Monday, was on a claim that Article 11 of the Nationality Law, which stipulates the loss of Japanese nationality upon voluntarily acquiring a foreign nationality, infringes on the right to self-determination.

The Fukuoka District Court turned down the initial claim in 2023, noting that the law was appropriate and was not beyond the scope of discretion. The Fukuoka High Court also supported the first decision last year.

According to the ruling, the woman acquired U.S. citizenship in 2004. She applied for a Japanese passport in 2017, but her application was rejected the following year on the grounds that she had lost her Japanese nationality.

This is an interesting rejection of Clown World’s anti-nationalist campaign, particularly because the Japanese constitution was imposed upon Japan by the US occupiers after World War II. It’s a strong indication that the dual-citizenship effectively created by the US Supreme Court decision in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) was both incorrect and inappropriately utilized in an excessively expansive manner to create a supra-national individual right that does not and should not exist.

Being ruled by foreigners is not only a curse in the Bible, it is a common late stage in empires that usually presages an eventual collapse.

DISCUSS ON SG

MAILVOX: Advice From the Terminated

In which a whistleblower discovers that no one cares about would-be heroes.

Advice from the Terminated

I once was terminated from a long-term white-collar job and refused to take the generous severance package they offered. Here’s some advice based on what I learned.

Only Do Real Whistleblowing

If your company is doing something unethical or even illegal and you feel you must inform others, never do so internally, trusting your managers to be appreciative or even just reasonable. Sadly, sometimes no good deed goes unpunished. Go external to have proper protection, especially if you have a reputation for being difficult (where your “not listening” means not always being compliant enough!).

“Help”, “Guidance” and “Protection” = Corrective Action

If you are being given “guidance” or “help” or even “protection” by your managers or HR person or Dean of Diversity – even if this is framed as “friendly concern” – consider that such actions can easily be characterized as discipline or corrective action later on. Especially if you are told you need to sign what you think is just something like an “incident report”, even when you think that your supervisor is supporting your actions – or even just acknowledge the reception of an email seemingly containing both praise and what could possibly be perceived as a subtle warning. I’d immediately start looking for a new job if you get one of these.

Your Excellent Reputation is Only as Good as Today

Years of past successes, impressive references, compliments about communication and social skills, professional accomplishments, glowing talent management evaluations, etc. can become irrelevant in a minute. If you are perceived by higher-ups as being insufficiently supportive of your organization’s direction or “problematic” in any way, watch out! And do not think for a minute that one manager will ever overturn the termination decision of another.

Just Shut the Hell Up

If you are involved in a meeting with higher-ups and you suspect that they are not open to concerns about how you are being treated unfairly do not try to persuade them at all. Just listen very carefully during the meeting, taking notes if that seems acceptable, and saying “Thank you”, and “I understand” a lot (maybe ask if you can record the meeting, as you truly don’t want to miss anything important – this, of course, will also serve to protect you). Later on, you can do more reflection and try to figure out what to do next. All of this is especially important if you are feeling frustrated or caught off guard by what happens. Unlike me, try not to show any lack of prudence or a dearth of absolutely impeccable manners and poise. Any weakness you show here might enable groups to create accounts about how they felt victimized by you.

You Can’t Afford to Think You are Smarter and More Clever Than Them

If it comes to legal manners, do not represent yourself, ever. Even if you are highly ethical, that won’t help and could even hurt: they know the legal game better than you ever could. And take heed: If the state is involved in the case, be aware of what ultimately will be made public and what won’t be made public. Also note that there is nothing Illegal about a company selectively choosing to enforce their own internal policies. Combine this with at-will employment, and this combination also will make getting any unemployment benefits that much more difficult.

DISCUSS ON SG

He Shouldn’t Have Been Fired

Mike Waltz should have been arrested and put on trial for treason:

President Donald Trump sacked his national security adviser Mike Waltz because he was plotting with Israel’s leader to attack Iran, it was claimed last night. Waltz, 51, was thought to have been fired because he accidentally added a journalist to a Signal chat about plans to attack Yemen’s Houthi terrorist group, causing global embarrassment for the Trump administration.

But last night the Washington Post reported the real reason for Trump’s ire was that Waltz huddled with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the latter’s White House visit in February and ‘appeared to share the Israeli leader’s conviction that the time was ripe to strike Iran,’ according to a source.

Trump was angered that Waltz ‘engaged in intense coordination with Netanyahu about military options against Iran ahead of an Oval Office meeting between the Israeli leader and Trump.’

The source said: ‘Waltz wanted to take US policy in a direction Trump wasn’t comfortable with because the US hadn’t attempted a diplomatic solution. It got back to Trump and the president wasn’t happy with it. You can’t do that. You work for the president of your country, not the president of another country.’

Someone should probably tell Congress that too.

DISCUSS ON SG