...who thinks that he's making an actual point by comparing actual creative expression to heating food.
You're also welcome to pick up a pen, or a tablet, or crayons, you don't have to use just a pencil. But maybe non-toxic edible finger paint is more suitable for you in particular. :)
I wouldn't even go that far. What's the line between commercial and noncommercial use? Lots of people commission artists for custom made artwork and reference sheets for their characters; if someone instead uses AI art to replace that, is it still noncommercial even if that person never once makes a dime off the AI art? What if the artist makes a living drawing memes as a way to provide exposure and attract commissioners (rare, but they do exist)?
For me, the only ethical uses are entirely private cases where it's never shared (e.g., an artist throwing out some ideas while looking for inspiration of how to draw something), and cases where it's exclusively augmenting human work--for example, the feature in Photoshop to extend the background of a photo to create a panorama.
I mean, I'm not the one who had the unmitigated gall and sense of entitlement to compare the thousands of hours each of the tens of thousands of artists (whose artwork was scraped by LLMs without so much as a by-your-leave) spent practicing to get good at artwork to the... what, ten? twenty? hours you took to get good at "prompt engineering." Nor did I have the absolute nerve to then complain about how you have it SO ROUGH because you have to "fiddle with Photoshop" but all the mean people mock all your hard effort!
Hint: You're being mocked because you deserve to be mocked. At best, AI "artists" like yourself are lazily piggybacking off the literal millions of collective man-hours of labor that actual artists spent honing their talent, and trying to pass off the creative equivalent of a boneless chicken nugget shaped like a dinosaur as being of worthy of the same respect as a beef wellington, or at least a damn good burger.
I hate hate hate hate it, I'd be happy if they were all banned, tbh.
This is prolly gonna be a hot take but the only reason I don't block AI art communities is so that I can downvote them whenever I see an AI art post. Yes, I'm that petty, and no, I don't give a shit.
Still orders of magnitude less effort than actually learning to draw for yourself and making something actually creative
But please do go on about how your pink slime regurgitated by an LLM trained on stolen artwork scraped from hundreds of thousands of actual artists requires so much effort and creativity
You'd be surprised how many new charging stations have at least one chademo port. It's nowhere near as ubiquitous as NACS or CCS, but it's enough that I'm generally okay charging my leaf.
Basically, companies are required to pay for unemployment insurance that funds the government's unemployment benefits system. If you lay someone off, the employee files for unemploent, and gets paid a portion of their weekly salary while they look for another job (the amount you get paid and whether there's any additional requirements varies from state to state, with Democrat-controlled states usually being more generous, but generally you have to show you're actively seeking a new job), and the employer pays a bigger unemployment insurance rate to compensate for the additional burden the former employee is now placing on the government benefits system.
However, if you're fired for cause--say, you get caught stealing from the cash register--then the employer can contest your unemployment. If the employer can show you were fired for a good reason, the employee can be denied unemployment benefits, and the employer doesn't have to pay extra unemployment insurance. This meeting is the company trying to cook up a justification for firing with cause, and the employee trying to get them to admit they're just being laid off, because if the company admits during the exit interview that she's just being laid off without cause, it's nearly impossible to contest her unemployment benefits claim later.
I'm going to go a little against the grain and recommend Fuga: Melodies of Steel and its sequel. It's not exactly what you described, but the game is very adept on forcing extremely difficult and impactful choices on you naturally through its gameplay.
More like they were a darling up until they were compromised by Russian intelligence and turned into the propaganda arm of the protofascist party in the US.
It makes sense to judge how closely LLMs mimic human learning when people are using it as a defense to AI companies scraping copyrighted content, and making the claim that banning AI scraping is as nonsensical as banning human learning.
But when it's pointed out that LLMs don't learn very similarly to humans, and require scraping far more material than a human does, suddenly AIs shouldn't be judged by human standards? I don't know if it's intentional on your part, but that's a pretty classic example of a motte-and-bailey fallacy. You can't have it both ways.
In my last apartment, the flush lever broke and I couldn't be arsed to call maintenance, so I popped over to the hardware store and grabbed a replacement for 5 bucks. As I was putting the lid back on after installing the replacement, it shattered into 3 huge shards in my hand while I was holding it, for no apparent reason. One of those shards cut deep into the side of my hand like a hot knife through butter, right where my pinky met my palm. Barely avoided severing a nerve, and I still have a visible scar where it cut me.
It means you can get a divorce for any reason. Without that, you have to show evidence of wrongdoing by your spouse in court before you can get divorced. Needless to say, this can be very difficult if your spouse is good at covering their tracks, or if you can't afford a lawyer to help present your case.
Yeah, last time I ordered through grubhub from a Chinese restaurant, by the time I paid the delivery fee, inflated menu price, service charge, and driver tip, I was looking at almost $90 for mid-tier Chinese food. I ordered by calling the restaurant up and ordering takeout and paid $40 instead.
I literally could order from halfway across the state and make a road trip out of it and still come out ahead.
We don't know, all we know iirc is that at least four justices said "nah bro go through the regular appeals process." So reading the tea leaves, at least Thomas and Alito, plus any two of Gorsuch, Roberts, ACB, and Kavanaugh said no, at minimum.
It's hard to say with certainty what this signals about how they'll rule on the various Trump cases, but at minimum it indicates that they either don't realize that he's trying to delay the trials in the hopes he can win the election and have them all dropped, or they don't care that's what he's doing. If they really_don't_ care, it could be because they approve of his actions--and will likely rule in his favor--or simply because they value strict adherence to the regular process even at the potential risk of allowing an unqualified candidate (in the actual constitutional sense) obtaining office and doing whatever damage he can. None of those reasons bode very well for this particular case, IMO.
Yeah, literally the only pathway to ruling Trump is not barred is by throwing out the entire finding of fact by the Colorado supreme court that Trump engaged in an insurrection. It's not impossible since appellate courts do technically have this power, but appellate courts are usually supposed to give extreme deference to lower courts when it comes to their findings of fact--the standard from my brief bit of research is that the lower court's findings must be "clearly erroneous."
So given how batshit our current court is I expect at least two surefire no votes from Thomas and Alito. Gorsuch is probably a yes vote given how much of a strict textualist he's turned out to be, as are the entire liberal bloc. Ironically, Roberts is yet again the most likely swing vote, and I honestly don't know if he'd sign off on disqualifying him. I could see anything from 7-2 in favor of upholding to 5-4 or 6-3 overturning. Considering their recent signal in the form of denying Smith's request for expedited review, I'm... honestly not optimistic.
Eccitaze @ Eccitaze @yiffit.net Posts 4Comments 338Joined 2 yr. ago
Ah, you're this kind of idiot:
...who thinks that he's making an actual point by comparing actual creative expression to heating food.
You're also welcome to pick up a pen, or a tablet, or crayons, you don't have to use just a pencil. But maybe non-toxic edible finger paint is more suitable for you in particular. :)