Exactly, and it’s easier to make them user serviceable that way too.
I’ve never understood the desire to make $1k+ electronics super thin, but then again I step on things a lot. I guess the fragility could be a form of planned obsolescence.
There is the caveat that some guns were designed specifically for target shooting (like in a competition setting), but those are outliers.
Duh, you’re absolutely right. I need more coffee
And have been since their invention
Or maybe stop trying to make expensive electronics as thin as possible.
I thought the rule of thumb was to spell out anything after 10.
I had it backwards.
I’m not sure who told you that the only purpose for a gun is to kill people, but they were very wrong.
Exactly. The problem is there’s only 3 manufacturers who make the chips that go into ram sticks.
I’m betting it would be underground
I’d rather be stuck on the moon than deal with the bullshit down here
Poor guy, having it blasted over the news. That’ll definitely help his anxiety.
Pro tip: money is fucking disgusting, don’t touch your genitals with it.
Iirc part of the reason he killed himself was because he had a very aggressive form of dementia.
So your entire argument is semantics.
Gen AI does more than just replicating existing works. You’re not going to get the same result with the same prompt; each result will be unique.
And I’d argue that the person writing the prompt is the one providing the inspiration to get the software to express what’s in their head.
How exactly is a generated image not novel? You’re not going to get the same image twice with the same prompt. Everything it generates will be original. It’s not like they’re just providing you with an existing image.
And still the argument I’m hearing is that it’s fine for humans to use artistic works without consent or credit just because it’s a human doing it.
Just because the underlying processes are different doesn’t mean the two are functionally different.
I also think it’s funny because I’m betting the Venn diagram of people who think AI using publicly available artwork to train on is bad and people who think piracy is good is almost a single circle.
I never claimed that Gen AI has consciousness, or that what they produce has emotions behind it, so I’m not sure why you’re focusing on that.
I’m specifically talking about the argument that AI is bad because trains on copyrighted material without consent from the artist, which is functionally no different than humans doing the exact same thing.
This isn’t me defending AI, this is me saying this one specific argument against it is stupid. Because even if artificial consciousness was a thing, it would still have to be trained on the same data.
Alrighty, so generative AI works by giving it training data and it transforms that data and then generates something based on a prompt and how that prompt is related to the training data it has.
That’s not functionally different from how commissioned human artists work. They train on publicly available works, their brain transforms and stores that data and uses it to generate a work based on a prompt. They even often directly use a reference work to generate their own without permission from the original artist.
Like I said, there are tons of valid criticisms against Gen AI, but this criticism just boils down to “AI bad because it’s not a human exploiting other’s work.”
And all of this is ignoring the fact that ethically trained Gen AI models exist.
Right, because computers don’t use silicone.
But Gen AI is modeled after the way the brain works, so maybe you need to learn how it works before arguing against an accurate comparison.
At least in the US it’s possible to get a re-roll of the luck dice. In places with a rigid caste system you’re stuck.