If the penalties are harsh for not attributing ai to an image, what’s to stop sites from just having a blanket disclaimer saying that ALL images on the page were generated by AI?
Just like what happens with companies slapping Prop. 65 warnings on products that don't actually need them, out of caution and/or ignorance
No, mostly because I'm against laws which are literally impossible to enforce. And it'll become exponentially harder to enforce as the years pass on.
I think a lot of people will get annoyed at this comparison, but I see a lot of similarity between the attitudes of the "AI slop" people and the "We can always tell" anti-trans people, in the sense that I've seen so many people from the first group accuse legitimate human works of being AI-created (and obviously we've all seen how often people from the second group have accused AFAB women of being trans). And just as those anti-trans people actually can't tell for a huge number of well-passing trans people, there's a lot of AI-created works out there that are absolutely passing for human-created works in mass, without giving off any obvious "slop" signs. Real people will get (and are getting) swept-up and hurt in this anti-AI reactionary phase.
I think AI has a lot of legitimately decent uses, and I think it has a lot of stupid-as-shit uses. And the stupid-as-shit uses may be in the lead for the moment. But mandating tagging AI-generated content would just be ineffective and reactionary. I do think it should be regulated in other, more useful ways.
> Makes thread asking if you should go to the ER
> Literally everyone says to go to the ER
> Doesn't go to the ER
ok
What I'd really like to know is, why are screenshots of tweets and such always so poorly cropped? Why do they all need to be 80% dead space vertically?
I use 160g spaghetti with an entire 14oz jar of sauce, personally.
When they plaster that "If everyone reading this donated $x.yz right now, we'd be done within the hour" message I'll usually donate exactly the amount it says.
gen z: Roughly the generation currently in their teens to twenties.
dommes - Sexual dominants, as opposed to subs. Specifically female in this case, with "doms" being the masculine/gender-neutral variant.
puppygirls - Dog equivalent of a catgirl. A girl who takes on visual and personality traits of a puppy to various extents, often as a form of sexual play.
dogcage - Where you put your puppygirl when she's been chewing on the remote or peeing on the rug.
rawdog - To experience something "raw", without any aides to make the experience safer or more tolerable.
Translation: It's incredulous that young sexual dominants allow their submissives to use their phones while in their cage. It lessens the experience!
Cory in the House?
The headline is of course misleading, but not really for the reasons you pointed out. Nobody is going to read that headline and think it means 93% of gynecological research is conducted on men. Some people might read it and think it means 93% of medical research overall is conducted on men, though.
Literally none of this matters anyways if pennies are going, because making prices end in certain amounts won't work as nice in practice as it does here for the simple reason that US prices almost never include taxes.
Bold to assume I care about preserving my circadian rhythm
There isn't a single hour of the day I haven't both fallen asleep during and woken up during at least once in the last three months
Consider the function defined by y = x^(sin(x)^sin(x)). Observe its graph. Find an increasing function which passes through each of its local maximums, and another increasing function which passes through each of its local minimums.
Extra credit: You'll notice the graph isn't drawn for x-values which make sin(x) negative. This is because most of those values make the function undefined - though it is defined for infinitely many points in those intervals, it just also has infinitely many holes. Since it lacks continuity here, it has no true local maxes or local mins, and doesn't impact the original problem. We can nonetheless cheat and fill in the holes by expanding the function to these regions with y = x^|sin(x)|^sin(x) (Using x^-|sin(x)|^sin(x) should also be technically valid, but is being ignored because it's discontinuous with the rest of the graph and not as pretty, but will be mentioned in my solution). Doing so adds more local maxes and local mins. The new local mins should line up with your function that finds the local maxes for the original function - but, find a new function which hits all of the new local maxes.
(x/5)^log_b(5) - (x/6)^log_b(6) = 0
An 8x5 rectangle. If the bottom left corner is considered (0, 0), then two lines are drawn within the rectangle, from (0, 4) to (8, 1) and from (1, 5) to (7, 0). The smaller two regions of the four these lines cut the rectangle into are shaded. What is their combined area?
The image is of a large unit square with five smaller disjoint shaded squares contained entirely within it. The five smaller squares are congruent. Four of them are at each corner of the large square. The fifth is in the center, rotated diagonally, so the center of each of its sides is touched by the vertex from one of the other four squares. You are given that the common length for the five smaller congruent squares is (a-sqrt(2)) / b, where a and b are positive integers. What is the value of a + b?
So... The NO WAI Act?