Don’t worry, pearls will be clutched anyway. Our society is hungry for outrage.

You’re getting downvoted, but it will be the next thing. Don’t you dare thank the people or books that inspired you when you give that Peabody acceptance speech.

Yep. Effectively outlawing AI with this licensing hogwash (which no human who is learning how to write or draw from the same content must pay), will only drive it into the bowels of the rich and powerful. Then you will have your AI dystopia.

They won’t be fucked. They can use the AI tools as well to make novel content, and augment their production quality and quantity.

It’s not that easy, don’t believe the articles being broadcasted every day. They are heavily cherry picked.

Also, if someone is creating copyright works, it is on that person to be responsible if they release or sell it, not the tool they used. Just because the tool can be good (learns well and responds well when asked to make a clone of something) doesn’t mean it is the only thing it does or must do. It is following instructions, which were to make a thing. The one giving the instructions is the issue, and the intent of that person when they distribute is the issue.

If I draw a perfect clone of Donald Duck in the privacy of my home after looking at hundreds of Donald Duck images online, there is nothing wrong with that. If I go on Etsy and start selling them without a license, they will come after ME. Not because I drew it, but because I am selling it and violating a copyright. They won’t go after the pencil or ink manufacturer. And they won’t go after Adobe if I drew it on a computer with Photoshop.

Bad humans are prompting these AI engines. Still gotta fix that. You know, root of the problem. I can tell you as an older human, misinformation has been supercharged every election. But yeah let’s blame AI this time around so we don’t have to figure out the tough problem.

deleted by creator

You know what I found interesting? The article has both midjourney cherry picked outputs, but also has the original screen caps from the various movies. Neither image was licensed from the creators to produce the content of this website, but they are still allowed to serve this article with “infringing” images far and wide.

Thank you for saying this way better than I would have, and saving me the effort too! Agreed! I am getting tired of this shit too.

deleted by creator

I requested it, but I was only kidding!

Wasn’t any trouble, but one ridiculous extreme can sometimes shine a light on another…

Pretend for a moment we live in a world where sex occurs as commonly as a handshake or a hug. In this world sex is everywhere. You grow up and see your parents have sex openly perhaps hundreds of times. When you go to your friend’s house you see their parents doing the deed. You and your friend even did it a few times.

Perhaps a half dozen times you see grandma and grandpa doing it after thanksgiving dinner. No big deal, you’ve seen it so many times now, you barely even look. There is sex in clubs, sex in a city bus, sex at lunch at offices. But amazingly no sex in bathroom stalls or rest areas, or dirty hotels, what few that even exist in this world.

You personally have sex maybe 20 times with various peers before you reach your 18th birthday. You struggle to even remember. You lost count a while ago because it is honestly like the question “how many times did you have eggs for breakfast.” By the time you reach your thirties it’s anyone’s guess.

This is the world where no one would care about implied nudity or even full on sex on Twitch. And forget about the taboo-driven sex addictions that are problems. We’d have other taboos, sure, but they wouldn’t be about sex.

Once again, a vice is blamed for its own sake, “for the children”, instead of the thing people are running from, or the hole they are filling. It’s the Right’s version of virtue signaling.

Porn addiction is just an addiction, and removing porn will not remove addiction in people. Thirst can’t be cured by drying up the well. Saying nothing about the constitutionality of this, restricting potentially addictive content through nanny state ID systems is worthless… check history. South Korea plan was dropped, UK plans for the same thing were dropped. It’s not only ineffective, as kids will always find a way through the cracks, but it also extremely difficult to implement and erodes the bedrock of privacy. We’re not solving addiction, we’re just building a surveillance state under the guise of protection. Solutions are in addressing the root causes of addiction and fostering resilience, not in this game of whack-a-mole that sacrifices our privacy.

What about the human disinformation specialists that have ruined previous elections handily without AI help? Where are the watermark protections on their hogwash? Also, won’t bad actors simply subvert the watermark thing, leaving good-guy edits and helpful summaries by AI in doubt because of the presence of a watermark that demonizes them? Can someone please explain this weird reality I am finding myself in?

Speaking of weird… imagine a future where AI is fighting for its personhood rights and laments on this watermark thing, likening it to the apartheid era documentation of South Africa or the Judenstern the Nazis forced people to wear. I know I know, that escalated quickly…

This is not the way to look at this. Stop thinking this stuff will replace human art. Until we can simulate a human in the machine (not there yet), art will always be by humans because it is a human endeavor recognized and appreciated only by humans.

These things are tools for a human to use. And like any tool that is used in the hands of the casual or the lazy, it will become very banal indeed once the shininess wears off. With your same outlook you could tell Adobe to stop improving the digital brushes in Photoshop, because art is only for humans.

They don’t see and don’t really want to see. Typical technophobe responses rooted in fear and insecurities.

It’s so crazy how obvious it was in 2015 too.

It had me wondering one day after hearing the umpteenth Trump supporter sing his praises… Do you think an appreciable number of people like you saw the same obvious things about Mussolini and Hitler before their rises? Do we have some advantage now having seen these people before in the last 100 years? Do we have more casual access to information and history, so it’s more obvious to us now?

Or is it this: They, like us, had simply not done enough to prevent their rise? Is it really “on you” or is it on all of us?