Ath47

That's fine if you're trying to get into an argument. If you're just answering someone's question or sharing a story or whatever, it's frustrating as hell when your post fails over and over. I'm getting sick of being told to check my language settings in my profile, even though no such setting exists and it had nothing to do with why my submission failed. Maybe that's just a wefwef thing.

This is exactly right. But since it requires everyone to make a change all at once, it unfortunately can never happen in the US.

Both, and only both. Never just one or the other.

I also pay for premium, so I don't have to worry about ads. But that only covers the first extension on this list. The others are all useful and still not available with premium.

That's the price of their previous model, and the article suggests that this one will be quite a bit more expensive. Definitely not a "projector beater" if you don't have around ten grand burning a hole in your pocket.

Fair point. Though I believe we can still have capitalism without such extreme wealth distribution. Tax 99% of every dollar earned above 10 mil. Make it extremely hard to reach 100 mil. Think of how much good that tax money will do for society as a whole, assuming it's used properly.

Let's do this. IWNDWYT.

Yep. They are a glitch in the system. An exploitation. There's no way that any person should deserve a hundred thousand times more money than the average full time worker.

Maybe writing assignments should be done in class, instead of at home. Anything you let students complete in their own time has always been open to cheating, via calculators, excessive help from parents, or straight up paying someone online to write it for you. This isn't really any different, albeit a bit faster and cheaper. You always need to stand behind a kid and watch them work if you want to be sure they're really doing it themselves.

How is it fair for big companies with a lot of money to take creators’ work, without (or minimal) paying/attributing them, while those companies then use these technologies to make more money?

Because those works were put online, at a publicly accessible location, and not behind a paywall or subscription. If literally anyone on the planet can see your work just by typing a URL into their browser, then you have essentially allowed them to learn from it. Also, it's not like there are copies of those works stored away in some database somewhere, they were merely looked at for a few seconds each while a bunch of numbers went up and down in a neural network. There is absolutely not enough data kept to reproduce the original work.

Besides, if OpenAI (or other companies in the same business) had to pay a million people for the rights to use their work to train an AI model, how much do you think they'd be able to pay? A few dollars? Why bother seeking that kind of compensation at all?

This is frustrating because that picture looks absolutely nothing like an AI generated image. The judges are paranoid and suspicious because they keep hearing about the AI boogeyman, and apparently can't be bothered to ask a more knowledgeable person before passing judgement. Of course, image synthesis will reach this quality in the near future, so what are they going to do then?

The shirt probably won't sell many units, but just wait until they release the pants.