Out of curiosity, what is your experience/usage like with this? Spotify is very easy to justify if you heavily use some of their features because there’s not a way (that I know of) to replicate them. For example:

• Shared playlists
• Universal links directly to songs
• Playback control from a second device
• Group listen/jam
• Zero overhead for search and discovery. From someone mentioning a band you can find, sample, and add to a playlist in 30s or less
• Public playlist discovery
• Easy crawling. Eg. browsing from Song -> Featured Artist -> Album -> Record label -> Related Artists etc…

From my usage, sacrificing a majority of those is a non-starter because my Spotify usage has become more than mp3 hosting and organization.

Not an ad-hominem when it’s directly pertinent to the debate and an example of your implicit bias. If you take not understanding a word or filtering it through your own bias that be stupidity then that’s on you.

What should the Soviets have done instead?

Again, the conversation won’t go anywhere because no matter what I say, you’ll say it couldn’t be done.

That there was literally no possibility of making concessions to the Allies or leveraging their resources in a more indirect way. No way to manage your political footing that didn’t require reliance on Nazis or giving them an open flank in Eastern Europe. No German aggression that could be deflected and spun to international support. They definitely needed to make a photo-op of signing documents next to Nazis and of Soviet troops shaking hands with Germans. They needed to immediately start the annexation and sovietization of territories fresh off their liberation from inevitable German capture. No other way, definitely needed to happen like that.

Talking to you is a clinic in historical determinism.

1940 is the date Goebbels reported

All of these were verified by the Red Cross and there are stacks of documents giving evidence and testimony to the contrary. But yes, I suppose if you throw out everything you don’t like then any argument will get flimsy. Certainly we don’t get “genuine analysis” as you put it.

Further, again, the Soviet weaponry did not fire German ammunition.

The NKVD was a police force, they were under no compulsion to use military issue weapons. There are other documented instances of them using foreign weapons, it’s not out of the ordinary.

This whole weapon discussion is circumstantial evidence at best, there are plenty of ways it could have happened. And of course Goebbels was eager to report it, it’s very well documented in his own records that he was excited about the find and the bad PR it would give the Soviets. The fact that you’re dismissing the general consensus that the international community has come to after decades of investigation just to maintain your own narrative is pretty disappointing.

America rightly draws criticism for their strong arm enforcement of “democratic values” through occupation, but you see no parallel to the USSR enforcing “Soviet values” through the same occupation strategy. You’ve got some massive blinders on.

Profit in English has a usage with the definition I gave. You said yourself they were doing it to their own advantage. They benefited from it, there was some profit to them in the arrangement (unless they like helping Nazi’s out of the kindness of their heart). It’s not throwing anyone under the bus to say I can’t have a conversation if you lack a grasp on the meaning of words in their context.

Would have been great if they traded with them, but it would have also been beneficial to not sign the non-aggression pact and trade agreements, painting yourself as not aligning with their interests while also preaching a revolutionary gospel. You’re stacking the deck against yourself. But again, we’re talking in circles and you refuse to concede literally any ounce of fault or poor political maneuvering, not much to be said.

German-USSR trade was still ongoing in 1941. As part of that trade they did gain access to samples of German artillery, tanks and more. German companies were also known to export arms (in violation of the Versailles treaty) well before WWII. And even if you deny that, there were dozens of countries manufacturing arms and ammo in the German caliber because, get this, German guns were well designed!

Dismissing all evidence that could put Soviets in a bad light, even when it’s internal. Truly you are a Communist at heart.

So let’s put all that aside: capturing thousands of POWs and having them end up massacred in a ditch is acceptable? There’s no fault attributable to them for having this happen to people in their control and under their protection?

The Soviets didn’t have a profit-driven economy, what are you talking about?

Profit: to derive benefit, to be of service or advantage, a valuable return. Are you ESL or do you just have a conditioned response from all the propoganda you gobble up?

Brother in Christ if you can’t even admit giving Nazis oil, iron, rare earth minerals and other war necessities is bad then there’s no discussion to be had here. And you keep pointing it back to the West as if I care or that’s even relevant to the USSR’s actions. Dozens of countries can equivocate and justify their ethically grey actions surrounding WWII, why do the Soviets deserve special treatment in your mind?

The world is a massive place, diplomacy has a million facets, there are always options and trade offs. If you can’t find a single flaw in the USSR’s actions then I pity you. You’ve lost sight of your purported support of class struggle and solidary in favor of waving around Cold War flags.

Per our other conversation, the Soviets were trading for German finished goods. Why would you not expect to find German goods here??

And again, the Soviets themselves admitted to it. Why are you even discussing forgeries?

they continued to profit off the Nazis throughout the war

As did the Soviets, what are we even talking about here?? You just respond to each criticism with “they needed to do it and what about the US”, ignoring the multitude of other actions they could have taken if their priorities matched your claims.

Allies would not trade them

Which they did once they had Soviet support. They almost certainly would have received the same support if they joined them in 1939.

It was official USSR foreign policy that the communist revolution should spread to workers of the world in all countries. Regardless of the detriments or merits of that, you can’t ignore it when examining their foreign relations. Of course they got a different treatment…

The goods they got from the Nazis as a trade contributed towards the defeat of the Nazis.

They absolutely did not! One of the main factors that broke down the USSR-German relationship was a refusal to reciprocate military technology and materials.

The Poles asked for their troops back when they were forming a USSR-based army and were told that thousands had mysteriously escaped. Then when asked for an official investigation, the Soviets broke ties with the Polish government in exile and made their own.

The Soviets themselves later admitted it was the NKVD. Are you defending the USSR from its own slander?

Ah the classic .ml responses: the USSR really wanted to do something but was forced to do the opposite because of those nasty capitalist states and also we’ll just reject all sources we don’t agree with. It’s as iconic as the inverse US claims but you never fail to see the irony.

If you don’t want to believe US reports, just look at Germans attacking US ships well before their entry into the war. It’s not some secret conspiracy that the Allies were benefitting more from the US’s position than the Axis by orders of magnitude.

They saw the Nazis as such a great threat that they needed to give them the materials to fuel Panzers and make the ammunition that killed Allied soldiers? What? If they truly wanted the Nazis gone first and foremost they would not have done that. It doesn’t hold up to any logic.

That’s true, but what about that requires this?

1. Yes, the West wanted the Nazis and communists to fight and the Soviets wanted the Nazis to fight the West. Both sides acted accordingly. Why is this hard to admit?
2. So? The other countries on the belligerent list are receiving more support by several orders of magnitude. Not to mention trade to the Allies and other European countries continuing to go up as the war went on, clearly the war wasn’t the deciding factor.

The numbers OBJECTIVELY show a decrease in German trade to a pitiful amount. In the lead up to the US’s entry, quite literally the lowest of any European country (let alone adjusted per-capita). German U-boats were sinking US trade vessels up until the end, strange way to treat your trade parter?

The numbers OBJECTIVELY show USSR-German trade in war materials increasing as the war starts, with no significant support to the Allies right up until they’re invaded. There’s not any arguing this.

Pointing to post-WWII is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Either country could (and often does) gesture broadly at the Cold War to justify their actions.

Why is it so hard to admit that Saint Stalin and the USSR engaged in hard geopolitics? Somehow you’re trying to push the narrative of the Soviets being weak victims that begged and pleaded and were forced to concede to German demands. But you’ll also claim they’re the sole reason that the Allies won WWII. Which is it?

There’s a counterfactual history where the Soviets remain neutral and the Allies will still almost certainly win (though at a greater cost). The Axis simply didn’t have the manpower or resource access to keep up, hence their need to engage the USSR for oil. They certainly sped the war to it’s end, but that doesn’t change the fact that they could have made many different decisions if snuffing out fascism was their top priority.

1. Damn, if only there were suppliers of finished goods that also were strategically aligned on fighting the Nazis. But if you can’t blame the USSR for a half measure non-aggression pact with the Nazis then you surely can’t blame the Allies for withholding trade to a country not committed to the fight. After all, the Soviets got the supplies they wanted once they were actually in the war.
2. Nazi economic policy prevented profits from leaving Germany, and the fascist regimes were not subtle in their nationalization threats. Not much of a surprise that private enterprise will toe the line when faced with takeover vs nominal ownership. In terms of actual trade (ie: not Coke factories staying open to make Fanta), US exports to Germany dropped 97% from 1938-1939.

I’m by no means arguing for the Democratic™️ ideological purity of the Allies, but it’s pretty clear what the universal political thinking was in the lead up to WWII. Everyone (from Hindenburg up to the USSR) thought they could keep the Nazis at arms length and aimed at their rivals. A few fascist atrocities can be overlooked so long as they happen to the right people.

the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact

Putting aside all the usual arguments that get dismissed: What were the complex and mitigating factors that required supplying the Nazi war machine with more raw materials (oil, iron, grain, cotton, rubber, et al.) after the invasion of Poland? At the same time that the famously duplicitous Americans were enacting German tariffs and shifting economic support entirely to the Allies?

…and it will be valueless

What are you on about? Who are you to tell people what they can and can’t find value in?

You’re a hack who wants to pass other’s work off as their own

You’re making a hell of a leap here.

1. Who is the other? What work? A model trained on 50,000 artists might have a fraction of a contribution from each, and produces something in combination that none of them approached individually. How could any of them have a claim to something they didn’t make or envision?
2. There’s no requirement to pass anything off at all. The result could be interesting or thought provoking or just pleasing. Sharing that makes you a hack?

What is a tire or sheet of paper trying to express?

Could be any number of things. An extreme attention to detail, a production process with a political message, an innovative use of materials, etc… Putting artificial limits on which human creations are allowed to be fulfilling and engaging is foolish.

Also, desirable results require effort

Nothing about the use of AI or any other technology/tool/process precludes effort. A vast majority of pictures taken in the world today are disposal trash, but that doesn’t mean you can’t make meaningful art with your iPhone.

you don’t actually want to be an artist

My eyes are rolling out of my skull 🙄

They never claimed to want to be an artist, much less fit your definition of one. A movie producer might “make art” but they just care about the output and not using their job as a creative outlet.

That makes sense wrt redistribution, but the original comment limited itself to the ethical problem and not the legal problem. I just don’t see how it makes sense in that context because it’s entirely unclear who owns the work, that’s the nature of the technology.

If I train a model on the work of 1000 artists each of them contributes some fractional amount to each weight. When that model generates an image, it’s combining a pseudorandom human token input with the weights and some random seed info.

If I provide a prompt of my own making, am I stealing 1/1000 of the content from each artist? Is the result 1/3 mine from my token input? Is the result 100% the property of whoever trained the model? Do we need to trace the traversal of the weights and sum the ownership of each artist based on their contribution to that weight? Is it nobody’s due to the sheer number of random steps that convert the input intent to the final result?

What a weird distinction. So if I get a prompt to make a particular scene in a particular artist’s distinct style: not stealing. But if I share that prompt (and maybe even some seed info) to a friend, is that stealing? If I take a picture of the generated content, stealing? If someone takes it off my laptop without my knowledge are they stealing from me or the artist?

My viewpoint is that information wants to be free, and trying to restrict it is a losing battle (as shown by Ai training). The concept of IP is tenuous at best but I do recognize that artists need to eat in our capitalist reality. But once you make something and set it free to the world you inherently lose some ownership of it. Getting mad at the tech itself for the economic injustice is silly, there are plenty more important things to worry about in our hell scape.

Exhibit A