The issue isn't the final, individual art pieces, it's the scale. An AI can produce sub-par art quickly enough to threaten the livelyhood of artists, especially now that there is far too much art for anyone to consume and appreciate. AI art can win attention via spam, drowning out human artists.
tjsauce
joined 1 year ago
The passion... The passion... Is more than i can withstand!
21 is very specific
Exactly!!! If we're already assuming they served in the military, why do we need any more information than their name? What is the end goal of the dox?
My apologies, I did not read the article on the assumption Meta would choose the irresponsible option. The article was surprisingly nuanced, and I hope the enforcement of Meta's policies are equally nuanced.
Isn't it incredibly dangerous to ban "Zionist" only because it's misused? It can be used to legitimately describe people who have a vested interest in Isreal occupying Palestine. I understand it's used as a slur, but banning otherwise normal words will make the discourse much more difficult.
Still use it for my OG Xbox
It's kind of adorable, like a child designing an album cover using concepts they recognize but don't understand
That's not the sexist part, you have to read more. One Tweet can't prove anything, but several Tweets are a clear pattern of behavior. Quoting the first sentence betrays your disinterest.
We ought to normalize this phrase, it's pure gold!
Looks weird, but if they added a 3rd aesthetic, like Japanese wooden housing, or Russian brutalism, then we'd be talking.
view more: next ›
People were also a lot more open to their data being used by machine learning because it was used in universally appreciable tasks like image classification or image upscaling; tasks no human would want to do manually and which threatens nobody.
The difference today is not the data used, but the threat from the use-case. Or, more accurately, people don't mind their data being used if they know the outcome is of universal benefit.