I think the vast majority of the anti-AI bullshit being spouted by the people in this comment section and the people in !fuck_ai@lemmy.world is just straight up trolling or copyright and capitalist friendly bootlicking.
The fact is that without capitalism the AI venture capitalist projects by tech bros wouldn’t exist, but AI still would, open source, self-hostable, maybe even decentralized AI, but AI nonetheless. Also without capitalism copyright loses all it’s meaning and desire and inevitably becomes problematic as a barrier hampering human creativity and knowledge. Asking for permission to make art is a courtesy, it shouldn’t be required (especially for dead artists who can’t give permission).
So without capitalism, AI would not be obfuscating the sources of ideas, mischaracterizing the content of works, polluting communication channels with vapid slop, enticing emotionally-vulnerable people to self-destructive behavior, accelerating disinformation, enabling scams, profiling thought-crime, producing nonconsensual pornography…?
There’s no denying that capitalism is steering AI (and everything) in a dark direction, but AI is also just hazardous by its very nature. Moving beyond capitalism won’t automatically make humans more careful than we’ve ever been.
AI is also just hazardous by its very nature
I think the point is that there’s nothing hazardous inherent in its nature, and pointing to the problematic uses under capitalism isn’t any more a description of ‘its nature’ than is pointing to an ass a description of a chair’s nature.
AI is a tool, just like any other, and the harm caused by that tool is largely defined by how it’s used and by who.
There’s no doubt that LLM’s and other generative models are disruptive, but suggesting that they are inherently harmful assumes that the things and systems they are disrupting aren’t themselves harmful.
Most of what you’re pointing to as harm caused by AI is far more attributable to the systems it exists in (including and especially capitalism) and not the models themselves. The only issue that I can see with AI inherently is its energy demand - but if we’re looking at energy consumption broadly then we’d be forced to look at the energy consumption of capitalism and consumerism under capitalism, too.
I imagine the sentiment here would be wildly different if we were scrutinizing the energy demand of gaming on a modern GPU.
Sure, but Abigail wasn’t really advocating against transhumanism or technology generally… The critique of that video is that technology isn’t really the focus of the disagreement between transhuminism and anti-transhumanism, but rather the ‘dressing’ around a deeper phenomenological belief (for transhumanists it’s the belief that technology will save us from the inequity and suffering created under capitalism, and for anti-transhumanists it’s the belief that technology and progress will subvert the ‘natural’ order of things and we must reject it in favor of tradition). Both arguments distract from what is arguably the more pressing issue - namely that technology does nothing to correct the contradictions of capital and it may even work to accelerate its collapse.
I would really enjoy a discussion about how AI might shape our experience as humans - and how that might be good or bad depending - but instead we’re stuck in this other conversation about how AI might save us from the toils of labor (despite centuries of technological progress having never brought us any closer to liberation) vs how it might be a Trojan horse and we need to return to a pre-AI existence.
It might be more productive for you to argue the case for why the effects or harm you’re pointing to are somehow ‘inherent’ to AI itself and not symptoms of capitalism exacerbated by AI.
AI would not be obfuscating the sources of ideas
Who would care? Why would it be important?
mischaracterizing the content of works
Huh?
polluting communication channels with vapid slop
That can already be dealt with moderation tools. If you don’t like GenAI slop, just ban the people doing it.
enticing emotionally-vulnerable people to self-destructive behavior,
If people do this (big “if” here), then the cause is again in Capitalism (alienation) giving an incentive to do so.
accelerating disinformation
Root cause: capitalism
enabling scams,
Capitalism
profiling thought-crime
Huh?
producing nonconsensual pornography…?
We were doing that since photoshop.
Just because you can spam a bunch of scary concepts, doesn’t mean they stand up well
Another thing about AI slop is that it’s usually motivated by some sort of get rich quick thinking or plain old labor replacement. Both motivations disappear without capitalism.
Well, for myself, I just like generating pretty images for myself and my blogposts and to speed up my coding.
deleted by creator
You can’t dismiss the legitimate harm enabled by these things by pointing to another thing that enables harm…
I think you could make reasonable points here, but you’re not engaging in discussion if you just dismiss them. These are legitimately serious issues and it’s worth taking them seriously especially if you actually believe the things you say and want other people to understand your point of view. I’m not going to lie, it’s gross to basically just say “well people get sexually abused anyway so it’s not a concern.”
Capitalism enables a lot of terrible stuff, but the world doesn’t immediately become sunshine and rainbows if it’s gone. There’s still a lot of work to be done after the fact
You can’t dismiss the legitimate harm enabled
Lol watch them
Simping for these auto complete bots requires reciting mantras while blocking out reality.
Ffs, are you really this fucking dense, or is this an act you’re putting on?
Maybe if you stopped simping for capitalism, you could start addressing that harm you like to whine about.
Of course, if liberals addressed the root causes of harm, then they wouldn’t have any causes to appropriate to fundraise with.
AI image generation is theft.
The pictures stolen to train it that it then uses as refrence to shit out Frankensteins of other people’s art were stolen without the consent of the original artists.
It’s theft, that’s been proven.
It’s not creative, it should be illegal.
Hey look, it’s one of those pro-copyright trolls I was describing in my original comment about how the anti-AI trolls here are hypocrites for coming to an anarchist, leftist community that doesn’t support or prop up the false notion of copyright and intellectual property gatekeeping coming here to argue that a thing is bad because of copyright infringement.
You can’t expect people here to not think you are a troll coming to a community in dbzer0, AKA the piracy instance, and trying to argue pro-copyright talking points, that’s what you’re doing here when you come and whine about art theft. Copyright is a capitalist construct, you sitting here arguing for it, or putting down violations of it is laughable petty trolling at best, and at worst it’s Anarcho-Capitalist, or just straight up pro-capitalist trolling.
Lern to draw lazy baby troll
It’s not hard
I’m sorry you don’t respect the work of real artists, but that’s not an excuse to steal.
I don’t accept the idea of copyright in the first place. The very idea of intellectual property is absurd. Once you release an idea to the world, turning around and claiming to own that idea is akin to slavery. You’re really going to sit here and tell me if you create art, you own the neurons that formed in my head to remember it? That’s barbaric and inhumane.
Once you make art and release it to the public, it’s as much mine as yours, and I’ll do with it whatever I want because it belongs to everyone. Ideas are a part of people, and people should be free. Anyone who claims to own another person is evil.
People who don’t want copyright to exist have never created art people want to buy.
I agree it sucks that money is required for everything. But as long as we perpetuate this system it’s better to not allow theft.
We should change copyright laws, but we do need copyright laws still.
It absolutely would be. But this is not about logic. It’s about making sure everyone knows that capitalism is re root of everything bad that has ever happened.
Even the things that happened before capitalism!
Are you like… lost? You’re literally in a leftist anarchist community and you’re surprised that people here, in this leftist anarchist community are against capitalism?
They aren’t lost, but they are an idiot. They have consistently horrible takes that they enjoy sharing with the world by puking on their keyboard.
Oh for sure, they’re absolutely not lost, more like a troll.
I don’t think people will stop spamming lazy AI art if capitalism goes away.
People have always spammed lazy art, and we probably always will. Ancient runes boil down to “So-and-so was here,” and we post countless images with text slapped on them every day. Most books are lazy, most TV shows are lazy, most songs are lazy. We mostly pay attention to the good ones, and the rest is background noise.
In support of your comment; do you know how tired I am of “loss”?
Used to see Kilroy everywhere, too.
The “lazy” artists of human history, none of which are as lazy as AI prompters too lazy to even touch a brush, were never able to create art meaningfully quicker than the “quality” artists. And they never had control over what art other people are able to see.
The issue is if we let this keep going then within 10 years 99.99% of all art ever will be ai trash and you will not see original art, since it will be blotted out with the spam. I know when I say art you just see dollar signs, but art actually means something to passionate people.
Not to mention how insanely lazy it is that AI doesn’t even generate original art, it has to steal from artists in its training data.
And they never had control over what art other people are able to see.
I’m not sure what you mean. I’m not prevented from seeing genuine human art.
The issue is if we let this keep going then within 10 years 99.99% of all art ever will be ai trash and you will not see original art, since it will be blotted out with the spam.
I don’t think that will be the case. We have machines that make us clothing and such, but hand-crafted goods are admired for their artistry, and those who can afford them will happily pay a premium.
Over 50 games were released daily on Steam in 2024, but we still found the great titles by word of mouth, reviews, and awards.
Maybe a lot of “art” will be generated, but I think not being able to copyright AI works will make corporations prefer human-made art so that they’ll have a monopoly over the rights. I think it’s more the case that generated assets will replace/broaden stock assets.
I know when I say art you just see dollar signs
What makes you say that?
it has to steal from artists in its training data
One of the reasons I don’t have a burning hated for AI art is because I can’t see a difference between what it generates and what I generate. I also steal from artists in my training data, be it watching a tutorial or using references. A seemingly original idea like a cat drinking tea on the moon is really just combining every Victorian tea party painting I’ve ever seen, every cat I’ve ever seen, real or drawn, and every depiction of the moon I’ve ever seen. Anything I can imagine comes from stimuli previously consumed and techniques taught by others.
If you’re making art to show it off to other people, then you’re just trying to make profit, not make art.
Nobody can take art away from you. It’s a manifestation of your emotions. It doesn’t matter what tools you use to manifest those emotions, art made with AI isn’t somehow lesser than art made with a brush. And nobody, including you, gets to say otherwise.
db0 woke up today and chose violence again.
I keep screaming it and all the fucking liberals come out of the woodwork to shit on AI- they can virtue signal all they want but I survived on selling my art for years and me and all the other artists I know can’t say it loud enough:
If you aren’t paying for art now then why the fuck are you mad about AI “stealing jobs”? And if you don’t make art for a living I promise you, no one is mad at not having to draw somebody’s Sonic OC or latex fetish to live! Uncouple the need to sell art to live and people don’t stop making art, they make more of what they want to make!!
AI gives the power to make things to people who can’t. It doesn’t take away my ability at all. Stop the capitalist system that enslaves artists, and we will make more, and better!
If you aren’t paying for art now then why the fuck are you mad about AI “stealing jobs”? And if you don’t make art for a living I promise you, no one is mad at not having to draw somebody’s Sonic OC or latex fetish to live! Uncouple the need to sell art to live and people don’t stop making art, they make more of what they want to make!!
I kinda wanna make a few spaces I help manage have a rule for April Fools day:
If you did not personally create the image, or pay for someone to create it from scratch, you are forbidden from sharing and viewing it. It is in violation of the copyright of the owner, and they did not give consent to the use of their Intellectual Property to be used and displayed in this manner. Copyright is automatically assumed to the creator, and unless consent was given to the exact person with demands, it is null and void unless stated.
99.99% of all media online weren’t given consent to be shared or modified by the owners of the media. Everyone will say it’s stupid for a company to try to expand its reach to the millions of faceless users. Yet will simp for them the moment they are briefly against AI. They will vouch for extensions to copyright, and say companies should purposefully creep their money and influence on the internet, because a bad AI model did something weird 5 years ago.
Eh, I don’t really buy it. You’ve still got an issue of plagiarism (notably not the same thing as copyright), soulless slop flooding creative spaces, the fact that LLMs just kinda lie all the time and then there’s the abuse enabled by image models, icky stuff and it’s absolutely not driven by capitalism.
Neural networks have a place in many fields, but when it comes to replacing human creativity, I’m not sold. I’ve certainly got no respect for anyone claiming to be an artist because they ran a program and stole the hardwork of potentially thousands of people. You can take away the profit motive, but you can’t take out the social motives. People are dicks and capitalism isn’t why they are, it’s a symptom and a tool.
Maybe there’s some use cases for that kind of thing, but I personally don’t see it and think we’d be just fine leaving that sort of thing out of daily life. I don’t see what we get beyond like making shitty graphics quickly or something, is that worth the harm?
You can’t steal art. Art is a manifestation of emotion, an idea immortalized. You don’t get to own ideas once they pass from your mind to another.
Every bit of art out there in the public is as much mine as anyone’s. Copyright and “intellectual property” are ridiculous concepts with no bearing whatsoever in reality. The very idea you could own part of another person’s intellect is absurd.
“Oh look, you just read this, that means I own the neurons you formed to remember it. Better not use my comment to craft a reply, that would be wrong of you.”
That’s how stupid you sound.
No actually. I have multiple concerns with “AI” that would continue to be concerns in a completely non-capitalism based system.
It would take several hours to type out some of them, but some that are very simple are: the resources required to have these “AI” systems are extensive and would be better used elsewhere, there are things that should not be copied (especially without consent of the creator) and used in a LLM or any image generator, and these systems only exist because of capitalism, without being able to extract and steal value from others, there is really no use for them
You can run inference on desktop gpus. Copyrights are a state enforced monopoly, not a law of nature. I don’t recognise any control of culture by anyone, including the author. The technology can just as well exist outside of Capitalism
I write software collectively. Sometimes code needs to be fixed. Let’s say Fred wrote some code that needs to be fixed. I fix it and create a merge request. My reviewer, Mark, looks over my merge request and allows it into the collective repository. Fred, being too attached to her code, comes over yelling. Fred has not learned that software is a collective experience.
We collectively own the technology and creative works. Under capitalism, we must individually own that work to make money.
I’m sorry are you new here? We on dbzer0 don’t believe in legally or state sponsored gatekeeping, which is what the concept of intellectual property by in large is. Have you ever seen media campaigns to spread awareness of copyleft, shareware, and GPL licensing, or have you seen campaigns meant to demonize people who violate the will of megacorps and try to scare people out of pirating content, you know, like these?
Also the companies who choose to prop up and lobby for laws to protect Intellectual Property, simultaneously don’t give any shit about the collaboration you speak of, many of them have either been proven to, or are suspected of violating those GPL licenses. So to say that IP laws are about collaboration is just straight up shitting in our mouths and calling it a sundae.
Cool story bro?
The government guarantees copyright and patents, not capitalism.
Mainly the US government, who forces other countries to adopt it via the reserve currency which is required to purchase energy, in mob boss style fashion. They are entirely artificial constructs that are designed to create monopolies in order to fund RND.
Even the BS laws like software patents are foisted upon other countries, for things like rounded corners on windows.
That’s your solution for everything.
A good solution fixes multiple problems, young grasshopper.
A good solution must be anchored in Reality, however.
The fact is that capitalism is not going anywhere, regardless of how many delusional commies post about it on niche social media systems.
But what if more people learn about anti-capitalist sentiment, and it begins to become more popular? I’m sure people thought the monarchy wasn’t going anywhere.
Sometimes a proposed solution has to go too far to find a happy medium.
You don’t have to be a communist to be anti-capitalist. Hell, some pillars of capitalism use definition-accurate practices of all this “commie shit” Americans love to rave about. Look no further than insurance and banks, both examples of large groupings of money from individuals to be allocated where needed and keeping currency as a more nebulous entity since it’s not tangible to any one person. No matter the system, one will become unsustainable when pushed to the extremes like capitalism is right now, teetering on the brink of yet another collapse.
deleted by creator
The AI haters here are just flat out hypocrites, I mean why are you on this instance? Be honest, it was probably for !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com, the largest community here (and one of the largest on Lemmy), maybe you didn’t and in that case maybe you just don’t understand the main mission of dbzer0 and the fact that copyright isn’t something we care about, but for those who do it is hypocritical if not downright asinine to support and participate in piracy but also say that “It’s important to respect intellectual property” when people discuss AI projects and training of AIs. I mean if you pirate movies or games you certainly aren’t respecting copyrights yourself. Maybe you think it’s different but those companies feel just as offended, and it’s evident from their sleazy efforts to fight against piracy.
There are so many arguments that can be made against AI and might even apply in certain situations (Corporate monster AIs like OpenAI) but this one is just fucking stupid, and you all make yourselves sound like trolls when you come here whining about the importance of copyright and intellectual property.
thats certainly not my argument agsinst it. there are a lot of arguments against Grnerative AI that have nothimg to do with copyrigth especcially on the left.
Like the envoiremental inpact, the amoint of energy and water wasted for large datacenters. how rich ceos see it as a way to cut down cost and replace workers (which doesnt even work but they dont care), The amount of exploitation that goes on in the global south where people are being exploited by comoanies that work for ai companies where they have to sit through ours of generatet content of gore and child porn to work on filtering said content out, whithout any psychological care aswell as abismal money they get for it.
the deals AI companies have woth fossilfuel companies. etc. there also some arguments on AI art nlt being actual art and how just content scraping indie and also big artist do a computer can turn out an pretty mediocre average artstyle because you (strawman you not actual you) are to lazy actually learning and apreciating an art style of an artist whos style you may like.
And also lastly the closed source nature of AI we currently have
Also there are different degrees of piracy when it comes to big corps and indi creators but thats another subject
So basically all things that, pretty much exclusively do not apply to the open source, self-hosted, and decentralized AI promoted and used by this community of anarchists and tech enthusiasts? And you wonder why people here think you are trolls? Like, everything you described here is a problem with capitalism and the capitalistic system, you realize that your arguments are just proving what @db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com is saying?
I think there is a misunderstanding. To clear things up, I was not talking about lemmy.dbzer0.com and I wasent talking about selfhosted AI models. Also yes The main Problems with AI are due to capitslism. Which applies to how we use and implement technology in general. for example the internet. Not shure to what group you are putting me into but I hope I can provide some context. I am an anarchist.
now onto what I was arguing about I was replying to your comment because, missing the context of this comunity and how it uses AI, I thougth you where definding the technology by arguing that the main point of criticism that people have is the Copyrigth aspect of it. Which is not true.
Now again I was talking about things like chatgpt Claude gemini etc. Not someome selfhosting their own AI model in their own homeserver.
And well specificly AI bros going aroumd generating AI images and calling it art etc.
Which im not saying you are or this comunity is.
So it seems like from what you’re saying that you aren’t one of the people me or db0 are talking about. Me and db0 are specifically talking about the hypocritical people who come here and complain that we use Horde generative AI and use all the talking points against OpenAI and Google, against Horde and even db0.
I’m not gonna lie, in a post-capitalist world, I would have absolutely no issue with AI that isn’t “AI art”. Art is the product of human creative decisions and human creative expressions. Removing the human source of said art (in my view) strips it of being art.
This is an interesting topic to me. If I paint a landscape, I think most people would say that’s art. What if I close my eyes and splash random paints at a canvas? What if I encourage my cat to track paint over the canvas with its paws? What if it’s a robotic toy instead of a cat? If I create a program like Minecraft to produce aesthetically-pleasing vistas, is that art? Is a swallow’s nest art? What if I physically do the painting, but I allow a random number generator to dictate my actions?
e: Elephants that paint recognizable objects were trained to do so by their handlers. When given access to paint and a canvas, elephants will happily smear the paint around with no apparent logic behind it. No non-human animal has been recorded reproducing an object visually of their own compulsion. Are the random paint smears of the elephant art? If I teach an elephant to paint a house, is that painting art? Who is the artist?
The viewpoint you’re responding to also disregards all the art made by elephants.
People are so desperate to hate on AI art that they will justify it a billion ways, but as an artist, let me tell you that art exists in nature. Art exists in a vacuum. Art can be found anywhere, made of anything, and it’s not just the creator who imbues it with meaning. Ultimately, the lens through which the consumer is engaging the art is the final measure of it’s meaning.
I wholly subscribe to the idea that it doesn’t matter if an artist or an author or a musician meant to evoke a feeling- whatever feeling invoked is valid.
It’s one thing for a bunch of people to say that AI art is meaningless because it’s same-y or because it elicits no feeling in them or whatever. To dismiss the entirety of it because it had no connection to something as ephemeral as a human soul during it’s creation is, at best, ignorant, and at worst, the kind of close-minded nonsense I’d expect from reactionaries who have no actual artistic experience.
To take it a step further- if a person has a reaction, any kind of reaction, to AI art, their feelings are not invalidated because of who or what generated that art.
That’s a view I haven’t heard before, that art is in the eye of the beholder in a very literal way, so that even an ordinary rock can itself be art if it causes someone to feel a certain way. That’s not in accordance with the current dictionary definition of art, but it’s certainly valid to argue that the definition should be broadened.
Elephant paintings are a perfect subject for the question of what art is, and I’ll edit my previous post to reflect that.
As an artist myself as well, I fully support the idea that the meaning of art is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. I simply think that a fundamental characteristic of art is its human source and the human expression imbedded into it, however that art is then interpreted. I may be mistaken, but you seem to view art as something that is defined by its experience, which is something that I disagree with. I would also love to hear your reasoning behind that.
It only becomes art once a mind observes it and appreciates it. If AI generates a picture but no one sees it, it’s not art. Generated images become art when observed, because that’s when it gains value. They don’t even have to like it, per se, but someone needs to experience it.
Value still comes from labor.
What if a blind person draws something to the best of their ability, but keeps the image in a private journal where no sighted person ever experiences it? (For the purposes of this hypothetical, they haven’t used a marking method that allows them to experience their creation via texture.)
They still experienced their creation as they drew it, though. Art is still art even if it is only experienced once by a single person.
That’s very interesting, thank you. Do you include non-human minds? I assume a Roomba detecting an obstacle doesn’t count because it doesn’t have a meaningful internal reaction, right? I’m thinking about a future iteration of AI experiencing art, either via creation or observation. If nature has programmed my mindless cells to feel things, it stands to reason that we should be able to program mindless rocks to feel things.
AI could experience art, but nothing we have right now is AI. Roombas can’t experience art and ChatGPT can’t experience art. They aren’t even close tbh
It can be used to create art (though that involves manual editing, most of the time), like any other medium, most of it is not. Just typing a prompt into a machine does not make someone an artist
AI art is purely derivative. People want to consume what’s already been done. I think there will always be a demand for true novelty but that market is already extremely small.
Edit: maybe the argument isn’t actually about art, instead it’s about robots taking human jobs. If AI could actually replace you then yes, you should be very worried.
Take it from the Godfather of AI, Geoffrey Hinton, a computer scientist, cognitive scientist, cognitive psychologist, and Nobel laureate in physics.
I don’t like that you linked to a direct download, but I love the cause
That’s odd. It opens in a new browser tab for me. That’s the only way I’ve used catbox. Is there a better way to host it so that doesn’t happen?
Like this:
🤔 maybe it’s a Sync for Lemmy issue? This looks like and image, but when I clicked on it, I downloaded the video for a second time. This seems dangerous.
It doesn’t render it in a frame to be played? That is weird, and definitely not in-spec with Markdown standard.
This is what happens when I click
Whichever app you’re using you should probably file an issue request for that, that isn’t supposed to happen.
When I click my link, it plays instead of downloading. WTF
I honestly have no idea. I’m on Android and when I clicked it, it took me to my browser and automatically downloaded it. If it wasn’t intentional, I take back the first part of my comment you’re replying to. Does catbox have an integrated media player? If it does, maybe it just doesn’t work for mobile🤷♂️
Nah. Catbox is free hosting without a front end. Mine just opens in a Safari preview on my iPhone. Thanks for the heads up. I’ll look elsewhere for a hosting option.
Your link still has me download it in order to watch it, but this link will play in the browser. Maybe it has to do with the file type?
They both appear to be .mov container, but they may have been encoded with different codecs. I’ll have to compare them on my computer tomorrow. Thanks for the input!
How does this .mp4 work for you?
Works perfectly, no download!
it is just a direct link to a file, if your browser / application defaults to downloading mov h264 videos that’s it’s quirk.
The most soulless socities have all been socialist so I have no idea what you’re talking about.
how do you ensure the next best thing which is socialism, does not turn into a different form of fascism?
Probably by doing anarchism instead
This is useful shorthand but is too oversimplified to believe in full
And what about the non-capitalist countries utilizing AI? Because the last I checked, Neither Russia or China are capitalist counties. The same goes for socialist countries as well.
In fact; I’m pretty sure AI isn’t reliant on any form of socioeconomic system of government.
All of them utilize AI. And I’d wager many of them even helped create it.
Because the last I checked, Neither Russia or China are capitalist counties. T
The fuck?! I heard the silly idea that China ain’t capitalist from misguided campists before, but Russia?! Not even the most smoothbrained tankie believes that.
I don’t think anyone on even lemmygrad thinks that. What a shock that Rhoeri being a troll got something wrong.
So you honestly think that just because they are “capitalist” it’s the same capitalism as what this shit tier meme is trying to imply?
Maybe you need to read up.
And for the record- I have no shits to give to any smooth-brained tankie for what they might think.
Capitalism is capitalism. It takes many forms. It’s not a monolith. Even Marx realized that in frustration. Just because you don’t like some forms of capitalism, doesn’t mean it’s any less so. It certainly isn’t socialism or feudalism.
Lemme guess, you’re some deluded right-libertarian or worse, "An"Cap.
Anyway, warning for Rule 6.
Fuckin AI bros trying to co-opt socialism to try to justify how much they love the new corporate tool.
