Could you explain how the last one goes against what I am saying? The author seems to be personally against AI art and wants to ensure that artists continue to be paid for their work, how does that go against what I am talking about? You haven't made a single statement in your actual stance on this topic, just said I was off base and linked articles.
Ah I see, you just sent me the wrong articles. I don't see how I was supposed to just know you also wanted me to read the other blog post on the first article you linked. Feels very "do your own research" doesn't it?
However, these also don't seem to change my initial opinion. The first article talks about the writers guild ruling that you should not be able copyright anything created wholly by AI, as it should be used as a tool. This feeds into my point that you can't really claim to have truly made anything made by using an AI (unless you created all the training images and run the AI yourself, that is properly employing it as an artistic tool)
The second article seems to be about the copyright laws related to AI and how companies are avoiding infringing in copyright law. Again, I already wasn't considering copyright, I already understand that copyright laws don't protect artists and that ruling AI as copyright infringement wouldnt help anything.
I don't think you are actually interested in making a point here, just trying to make me defend myself online. Fortunately I have had nothing better to do this morning so I have.
Could you please explain the point you're making rather than expecting me to come to a conclusion reading the articles you linked?
I see nothing in them even after a re-read that would address the idea of AI being used to replace artists. If anything these articles are just confirming that those fears are well founded by reporting on examples such as corporations trying to get voice actors to sign away the rights to their own voices.
Those capitalists support AI because it would allow them to further cut out all creators from the market. If you want solidarity, support artists against the AI being used to replace them.
These articles feel like they aren't really tied to my feelings about AI, frankly. I'm not really concerned about who is getting credited for the art that the AI creates, copyright laws just work to keep the companies trying to push for AI in power already. I am concerned that AI will be used to replace those who create the art and make it even harder for artists to succeed.
Why not sell it? Because chances are the things it was trained off of were stolen in the first place and you have no right to claim them
Why not claim it's yours? Because it is not, it is using the work of others, primarily without permission, to generate derivative work.
Not use it and hire a professional? If you use AI instead of an artist, you will never make anything new or compelling, AI cannot generate images without a stream of information to train off of. If we don't have artists and replace them with AI, like dumbass investors and CEOs want, they will reach a point where it is AI training off AI and the well will be poisoned. Ai should be used simply as a tool to help with the creation of art if anything, using it to generate "new" artwork is a fundamentally doomed concept.
I worked (admittedly as a custodian, so not an expert at all) in close contact with people who had antipersonality disorder. These were people who had been convicted of sexual assault and had served a sentence then had been deemed unfit to return to society. I don't believe any of them could get any amount of treatment that would have made them truly safe around others, even if they behaved well on their wards.
Mental illness can almost never truly be cured, and some people can be simply too dangerous to be allowed complete freedom. It's sad to think about, but I think until we have a better understanding of the mind and how to better treat people with issues like this, it's better that certain people stay "locked up" as it were. So long as they are given humane treatment and accommodations, of course.
It depends, I worked in a similar place and the people there lived in relative comfort. Obviously it's going to be a sad situation regardless, as even in the best of settings they no longer have freedom. but to some of the people in there they preferred it. Many of them had their own collections of books and even some video games and the like in their rooms and they could do things like working at the canteen to occupy their time otherwise.
For someone with very severe mental issues, living somewhere that keeps you away from the world and makes sure you're fed and relatively safe can be preferable.
I personally recommend Linux Mint. It feels just close enough to Windows to be fairly comfortable to use.
Customizing the task bar on Cinnamon still feels weirdly awkward and confusing though.
Repressed gay works just fine tbh, most people probably use "closeted" but that's more colloquial.
However, referring to a gay person as a "gay" can be a bit problematic as it strips their personhood from the statement. A lot of bigots will refer to gay people that way to imply they are lesser. I dunno if that's how it works in other languages, but at least in English it's generally more respectful to refer to groups as people specifically. So you'd always say "gay people" or "black people" and etc.
Being cringe is enjoying things that people think is embarrassing or lame. If someone likes Sonic the Hedgehog enough to wear sonic shirts every day, should they stop wearing them because it's "cringe"?
Could you explain how the last one goes against what I am saying? The author seems to be personally against AI art and wants to ensure that artists continue to be paid for their work, how does that go against what I am talking about? You haven't made a single statement in your actual stance on this topic, just said I was off base and linked articles.