That's because your question doesn't progress any argument. Unlike the question I asked you which was meant to probe your reasoning. it's the kind of thing a troll would ask. It's also a false dichotomy. I'm perfectly fine with you discontinuing as I frankly didn't expect to get a reply that continued the discussion in good faith after your first reply.
Everything you say is based on convention and nature and opinion. You never addressed what I said and in your own words "rearticulated" (more like regurgitated) the same points that you have yet to give merit to.
So your argument is that it's wasteful? And that food is a better justification for the waste than making a trophy?
You can make trophies out of things that aren't bears and you can eat things that aren't deer, so I'm not sure how they are much different unless your argument is that eating specifically deer is important somehow and making trophies out of bears is not.
Technology is always progressing but nobody can say what the next big thing will be, if you really think you are that prescient you can make loads of cash predicting things. Companies are hungry for the next big thing though and will do everything to convince us that they have it, AI is an enticing grift because it's so misunderstood. The next big thing wasn't AR or VR or the metaverse, and I don't think it's going to be generative AI either, it's already plateauing and not profitable, even with billions of dollars behind it.
The liver is one of the most complex organs in the human body. It is responsible for a wide spectrum of toxin breakdown and chemical synthesis. The heart only needs to pump blood, though it's uptime is very impressive. If your liver stops working you won't die immediately but if your heart stops working your body will be starved of oxygen in mere minutes. Ultimately though what the heart does is mechanical and simple.
I wouldn't advocate for someone eating palm oil simply for their own personal health. However if you want to talk about the environment way more land is cleared for livestock than oil palm, even if you just focus on the locations where oil palm is grown. And palm oil is usually replacing animal fats in cooking due to it's saturated fat content, stuff like lard and ghee.
Something like Microsoft Word or Paint is not generative.
It is standard for publishers to make indemnity agreements with creatives who produce for them, because like I said, it's kinda difficult to prove plagiarism in the negative so a publisher doesn't want to take the risk of distributing works where originality cannot be verified.
I'm not arguing that we should change any laws, just that people should not use these tools for commercial purposes if the producers of these tools will not take liability, because if they refuse to do so their tools are very risky to use.
I don't see how my position affects the general public not using these tools, it's purely about the relationship between creatives and publishers using AI tools and what they should expect and demand.
Anyway, as a publisher, if I cannot get OpenAI/ChatGPT to sign an indemnity agreement where they are at fault for plagiarism then their tool is effectively useless because it is really hard to determine something in not plagiarism. That makes ChatGPT pretty sus to use for creatives. So who is going to pay for it?
That's because your question doesn't progress any argument. Unlike the question I asked you which was meant to probe your reasoning. it's the kind of thing a troll would ask. It's also a false dichotomy. I'm perfectly fine with you discontinuing as I frankly didn't expect to get a reply that continued the discussion in good faith after your first reply.