Eccitaze

Literally the only reason I'm not still using the 5G variant of the 4a is because I dropped it in a grocery store and rolled an IRL nat 1 (it landed on its corner, went windmilling on the rebound, and struck the edge of a metal shelf in the exact top center of the phone, severing a cable and killing the display AND touch screen). I swapped back to my OG pixel, and the only reason I'm even considering am upgrade now is because its battery is literally starting to die.

Yeah, as someone in a tech job whose primary function is "parsing and interpreting logs" sometimes even the repeated flood of seemingly useless logs can be helpful. If nothing else, they explain why there aren't any useful logs and that can guide how I respond to the problem.

Democrats voted no because it's a divergence from the deal McCarthy negotiated in May. Hard-line Republicans voted no because it's not enough of a divergence and only gives them some of what they asked for (even though what they're already getting is a non-starter in the Democrat-controlled Senate).

McCarthy could present a bill that adheres to the previously negotiated spending limits and it would almost 100% pass with support from moderate Democrats and Republicans overriding the no votes from the freedom caucus and a few progressive Democrats, but McCarthy is afraid to do that because the wing nuts are threatening to oust him from the speakership if he doesn't cave to their demands.

Make no mistake: the Democrats have zero responsibility for this mess. And make no mistake: the only way this ends is McCarthy growing the balls to tell the wing nuts to get fucked. The only variable is whether that happens before or after a government shutdown.

If you believe Google isn't planning on eventually training Bard on Gmail, then I have a half dozen bridges to sell you.

And if the odds of that happening are literally zero, what then? If the only feasible outcome of immediate, widespread AI adoption is an empty suit using the heel of their $750 Allen Edmonds shoe to grind the face of humanity even further into the mud, should we still plow on full steam ahead?

The single biggest lesson humanity has failed to learn despite getting repeatedly smacked in the face since the industrial revolution is that sometimes new technologies and ideas aren't worth the cost despite the benefits. Factories came and covered vast swaths of land in soot and ash, turned pristine rivers and lakes into flaming rivers of toxic sludge, and poisoned the earth. Cars choked the skies with smog, poisoned an entire generation with lead, and bulldozed entire neighborhoods and parks so that they could be paved over for parking lots and clogged freeways. Single use plastics choke the life out of our oceans, clog our waterways with garbage, and microplastics have infused themselves into our very biology, with health implications that will endure for generations. Social media killed the last remaining vestiges of polite discourse, opened the floodgates on misinformation, and gave a safe space for conspiracy theories and neonazis to fester. And through it all, we continue to march relentlessly towards a climate catastrophe that can no longer be prevented, with the only remaining variable being where the impact will lie on the spectrum from "life will suck for literally everyone, some worse then others" to "humanity will fall victim to its own self-created mass extinction event."

With multiple generations coming to the realization that all the vaunted progress of mankind will directly make their lives worse, an obvious trend line of humanity plowing ahead with the hot new thing and ignoring the consequences even after they become obvious and detrimental to society as a whole, and the many, instantly-obvious negative impacts AI can have, is it any wonder that so many are standing up and saying "No?"

The implication of this is you have an illithid tadpole in your dingdong and I hate my brain for giving me that mental image

Mmm, fair enough. I'm just... really skeptical of the political compass in general and pretty much any time it appears I can immediately discount it as fash-coded BS. There's much better ways to demonstrate this IMO.

It's literally not the same as digital art and I find the comparison offensive. One is a human directly putting pixels on the screen, the other is output from a program that processed millions of pieces of actual artwork into the creative equivalent of pink slime.

And generative AI is literally just typing shit into a computer without even needing to travel anywhere to get something even mildly interesting.

I know reading comprehension and wit isn't the strongest point of AI chuds but you could at least fucking put a little effort into your trolling.

It's interesting that you completely missed the point of my post and how there's a fundamental difference between taking a photo and typing a prompt into an AI. :D

The way your response was worded came across as saying that the default arrangement is the commissioner receiving the copyright for the art unless otherwise specified, not the artist. My apologies if I misinterpreted your post.