When people refer to AI as a tool, they mean as a part of the drawing/rendering workflow, not the whole. If you went through the entire design workflow without the AI, you can take full ownership over that. That part still takes your skill. But if the AI still builds most if not all of the image, you can’t really claim ownership over the image, since from that point, the AI makes (basically) all of the skillful decisions.

Only if you start being a part of actively shaping the drawing, like providing a sufficiently original base image or other advanced original input, drawing over or recomposing the image afterwards, you can get something you were actually a part of it. That’s the (closer) equivalent of an artists brush. The artist uses and applies the brush in a way to make something that becomes bigger than it’s parts. Using AI for the full image would be equivalent to applying a stamp. It can be a very pretty stamp, but something else made it.

Saying “I made this”, isn’t false per se, but the omission of “by having the AI draw my design.” does drastically change the perception to the point it’s deceptive. It’s just about being honest. If you made a cool design, stick to taking credit for the design. At the end of the day, not being a part of putting the design into a drawing is not uncommon, but certainly better than being deceptive, even if some people may dislike the AI use. Those people will hate you all the more for lying by omission over it if that was an issue for them, and it can certainly also draw unhappy responses from others who would be fine if you told them honestly.

EDIT: Typo

Google can still automatically mark your message as spam if enough people mark it as such or you trigger spam identification too often (this can happen if you send frequent test emails with not much in them) - it’s not neccesarily an attack on you. But plenty of spammers will send perfectly well verified emails today, so you are just caught in the crossfire.

Try sending a gmail account you still have access to a couple of genuine looking mails (eg. At least a paragraph of legible text and with a signature), then marking the messages as not spam. That worked for me. Even after that though, one line messages can still trigger the spam detection.

I think you’re misunderstanding them. They specifically mentioned SEO recipe sites, which are websites dedicated to being ranked highest on search engines, which typically means they don’t correlate with recipe quality, but with clickability (or whatever the algorithms like today). There’s a lot of them, so calling them spam isn’t necessarily wrong. Lots of people search for recipes, so it’s bound to attract it.

They just seem to be cautioning that the LLM might pull from bogus sources since there’s not really a straightforward benchmark for a good recipe that it might reference, and that you have to remember you’re using a tool. Your own intelligence is the real test. Which isn’t bad advice when dealing with AI output, but I think you already got that. I would say, don’t be baited into the idea that everyone is some hardcore AI hater because they are skeptical, there are certainly some, but assuming it alienates the many people that have surprisingly nuanced takes.

I hear this more frequently nowadays, but it really is kind of misplacing the blame for this change. Steam went for this model precisely because many of the bigger game companies to this day refuse to sell their games as anything but a heavily restricted license. And Steam as a storefront does have to cater to them in that regard, especially back then. Even physical disks as others pointed out were technically not something you owned, but rather that resale and such was not enforced or enforceable. (You would definitely get some stern letters if you started copying and selling those games at larger scale, even if you ‘owned’ the original copy).

People do still sell DRM free games on Steam that you can copy and distribute to essentially your hearts extent without Steam ever getting involved. The license you have is for Steam to provide you the download service so you can get your digital copy (and a bit more). If you care about people owning games, then it’s up to you to support and buy from the kinds of companies that don’t provide you a license or (more likely) where the license is unrestricted enough to fit your description of ownership. The middleman like Steam you buy it from shouldn’t matter if they don’t exert undue control beyond that. And at least being on PC if you really must buy something with DRM you have options to remove it.

As someone without aphantasia, I don’t always quite get it either. Reading is often a last resort medium for me, but it does have it’s place. Plain text primarily engages my narrative imagination (where is the story going) and only a little bit of visual imagination (since it’s kind of hard to convey certain things like body language in text without being very boring), while for example a video might invoke narrative, visual, and auditory imagination. Video games are even better to me, as they engage narrative, visual, auditory, and decision making imagination. It’s about stimulation to me, the more coherent the better, and books just don’t seem to stimulate enough for my imagination to kick off to where it’s enjoyable to read.

“I’ll have you know my great-great-great-great*10⁸ ancestor turned into oil recently, have some damn respect for my deep family history!” /s

Lmao, LoL might just be the perfect game for you. Nobody’s offended, snowflake.

Well, if you’ve never heard of it, then it must never happen! You should know this if you play LoL, because they give your messages that your report has resulted in a penalty. Unless you never report anyone toxic.

This is not toxic, it’s acting like a child, which will never be bannable. Normal people aren’t bothered by that.

Normal people aren’t bothered by it. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t toxic, on top of being childish. Besides, children too need to learn that behavior isn’t acceptable. Pretty sure you can easily survive getting spat in the face too, but I’m sure you don’t think we should normalize that either if some brats do it.

Is it said purely to attempt to denigrate other people’s self worth? Yep.

Is it not said in a situation where it could be considered trash talk and your words could come back to bite you in the ass? Yep.

Congratulations, that’s pretty simply toxic, and cowardly, and childish. And you should really wonder if you want to be defending it in this thread of all places.

Plenty of games will actually ban people that consistently act toxic yes. Maybe not if you do it once or twice. I’m not sure why you think that’s so crazy. Even LoL itself if you do it enough and people consistently report you for it.

It is actually the game’s fault. Mutes and blocks are a last-line defense, not a first-line defense. Others games do proper moderation and will properly foster a positive community, and while they might have toxic people in them, they cannot be toxic as freely as LoL allowed them to be. Unless you are like, comparing it to a Call of Duty lobby, which is a meme on it’s own for the same reason. League is starting to get around to banning people more actively but they should have started over a decade ago.

Player to player interaction is very important for people to enjoy multiplayer games and it’s one of the reasons for people to prefer them over single player games. You can’t always know who’s an toxic moron ahead of time, and it’s unreasonable to cut out all of the primarily positive interactions with people because of a few idiots who act like schoolyard bullies and try to put everyone else down at any moments and create a negative atmosphere. Trash talk is fine, but the kind of people that say “EZ” often do so at times where they’ve already won. In other words, they’re punching down, and they’re bad winners.

If you do that at a real life event, you’re not going to be welcomed back. Because if you ain’t got anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all. And for multiplayer games to survive you need both good winners and good losers, otherwise the only people that eventually stick around are the toxic ones, and the game will die or just be known for it. Like LoL is.

I never mentioned premium, because yes it works like that for premium. But even for that paying them directly is better, as it avoids youtube’s cut completely.

While this is technically true, this only works because of the scale. Each individual user contributes less than pennies.

If you really want to support a creator, donate 5 dollars to them every year and you will be more valuable than any ad viewer.

Realistically the artists working on it have a say into what graphics settings are allowed, and they already deal with the fact some people will need to run on very low settings, also affecting their ideal viewing conditions. If the newer DLSS really makes such sweeping changes they would either ask Nvidia for improvements, disable it, or heavily dissuade it.

But player autonomy is also important, so it’s a balancing act. If the players end up wanting it and you take it away from them, it still won’t make sense to strip it out at the end of the day.

That’s in part because they see their future through the lens of them oppressing objective developments, so EVs and batteries will never happen in that fantasy. They took a liking to AI for example despite it being relatively new development purely because it helped them in that department. They will only embrace something if it’s ‘their’ idea, and they have a lot of shitty ideas.

Not sure why you are getting downvoted. What wonderingwanderer says is true as well, but honestly not relevant to this comic. Comics with this type of messaging often very explicitly call out men (even those that don’t treat women as such), which leads to a hostile counter response. This one just says “you’re a dummy if you treat women like this”, which yeah. You probably are, if not worse. But unlike many other examples it could literally also apply to other women, (eg. lesbians), non-binary, or other folks who objectify women. They are exceedingly rare I would bet, but things like TERFs exist too sadly.

While that’s true, it clearly worked and massive channels used it. So why is YouTube’s avoiding any responsibility and trying to kill it as quickly and silently as possible? Like, I get that sometimes you’ll have to drop support for things (even things you unofficially support), but there should be a phase out period during which people can either backup and re-upload videos with those captions to preserve them. They could and should honestly provide a heads up for that or even help them out.

Now they are literally decimating people’s hard work and on top of that pissing off actual partners. Not saying it will be successful, but cutting into people’s business like that is the kind of thing you can get sued over. So it doesn’t even make sense to take that risk from what we know.

I think that’s a good way to put it. You can’t do much about someone else crashing into you (Unless your husband is Mr Incredible), but you can do a whole lot more when selling/buying something to/from a stranger to avoid that turning nasty.

An important feature is that you can basically download (and thus, own) the music you pay for (in many formats too).

I think you might misunderstood what Bandcamp is aiming for here. They’re explicitly trying to still allow it when humans are using it (responsibly) as tools. This is essentially a ban on AI where no human is involved (or not involved enough), where the music produced is focused on quantity over quality (slop). That’s a fine and nuanced distinction for a music distribution platform in my opinion.

I doubt they would just blanket scan all music and ban that which they think is AI (aside from how that’s practically impossible). That’s the kind of thing a lazy big tech company would do. I wouldn’t be surprised if this will just end up being on a report basis, at the very least with human verification once steps like banning would be taken. Because otherwise it would be pretty disastrous for the reasons you mentioned, since it would ban legitimate artists. Not to mention the bar of “substantially AI” would need to be judged by someone.