Who cares? Israel has about as much standing to speak for jews as my local pastor has for speaking as the pope.

The living victims of the holocaust dont agree with you.

Because I wasnt born yesterday, and dont spend my time with my head lodged firmly up my own asshole?

Look at how broad that legalese is. Ask yourself if auto application would make them more money. Now count what 2 + 2 is on your fingers.

“Dissenting” here meaning using a swear word within 1 minute of an ad break, videos under a set length, and new content not dropping every week, in addition to what you normally think the word dissenting means

Fun quirky features are things you make when you have a good product.

These types of features added to things with genuine ongoing problems will always piss off users.

Well, that depends. Do you mean gpt the specific chunk of lln code? Or do you mean gpt the website and service?

Because while the nitpicking details matter to the programmers fixing it, how much does that distinction matter to you or I, the laymen using the site?

… That shouldnt be happening, regardless of chat content

Youre pretty young, huh. When something on the internet from a big company is free, youre the product.

Youre bug and stress testing their hardware, and giving them free advertising. While using the cheapest, lowest quality version that exists, and only for as long as they need the free QA.

The real AI, and the actual quality outputs, cost money. And once they are confident in their server stability, the scraps youre picking over will get a price tag too.

No, they are selling you time in a digital room with a machine, and all of the things it spits out at you.

You dont own the program generating these images. You are buying these images and the time to tinker with the AI interface.

Did photoshop create a portion of my image? Did adobe add a “generate the picture I asked for, for me, without my input beyond a typed prompt” as a feature?

Because if they did, 100% yeah, theyre liable.

… Do you think youre a robot?

And if you tried to sell that, you would be breaking the law.

Which is what these AI models are doing

“I didnt kill him, officer, my murder robot did. Oh, sure, I built it and programmed it to stab jenkins to death for an hour. Oh, yes, I charged it, set it up in his house, and made sure all the programming was set. Ah, but your honor, I didnt press the on switch! Jenkins did, after I put a note on it that said ‘not an illegal murderbot’ next to the power button. So really, the murderbot killed him, and if you like maybe even jenkins did it! But me? No, sir, Im innocent!”

What point do you think youre making? The answer to this question supports their point.

Or you do? The point is that these machines are just regurgitating the copyrighted data they are fed, and not actually doing all that transformative work their creators claim in order to legally defend feeding them work they dont have the rights to.

Its recreating the images it was fed. Not completing the prompt in unique and distinct ways. Just taking a thing it ate and plopping it into your hands.

It doesnt matter that you asked it to do that, because the whole point was that it “isnt supposed to” do that in order for them to have the legal protection of feeding it artwork they didnt pay the rights to.

Windows dont roll down either, phones dont ring, and that weird square for my save icon means nothing to me.

Linguistic artifacts are weird

Because the problem with ev is that the battery drains charge faster in the cold, charges slower in the cold, and struggles to charge at all if its too cold.

So if you have juice, starting is fine. But the cold problems for ev is that the cold is functionally drinking your gas for you, not that the engine cant turn over.

“Its over jimmy. They stole the money you made last week. I would pay you for this week, with this money you didnt have yet so it couldnt be stolen, but they already have some of your money. All that would do is make the robbers who took your previous weeks pay have fewer competition.”

Its clever really, the people who hate protecting your art from usage you dont approve of are very likely to not understand the technology, if youre going to mock them theyre the perfect set of rubes.

Unless you intentionally poison AI generated images and add them to circulation, which is not hard to do nor a great leap of logic to do if you hate AI