Blatant lie. 2m is super unconnom like a tiny fraction of a percent. And your dads cousin is not 2.5m the tallest living man is 2.51m

Yes, i would like rhinoceros thrice

The qyestion is is that nooth in the secure part of terminal? And if it is, can it really be considered “free speech” if you need to purchase a ticket to get in that part of airport to use it?

This is just star trek that happnes in the universe of the hit 2002 movie Thunderpants.

The US: “Thats is completely and utterly unnaceptable… heres a fuck ton of money so you can buy guns and do it the right way next time”

Why are they not making it? Where is the line? I assume we both agree that a digital artist is making their art right? But when you boil it down they are still just sending a computer insteuctions and its making it for them. Or if its about getting exactly what you want out it, what about artists that create art algorithmically or with a paint can on a string? Or what about people who just arent very skilled at art? For example when i draw, i have to settle for “close enough” and also in photography i usually cant get the exact shot i want with the camera and will have to edit it to get close.

Okay, but if theyre the one writing the prompt, changing parameters and pressing the button to generate it how are they not the one creating it?

And i do think photography is pretty analogous here. Anyone can point a phone camera st something, hit one button and generate something. It takes no skill or artistic talent to do so and the phone is whats doing all the work, but its still creating art. And just like AI, people can put more effort into it, coming up with a creative subject, fine tuning different setting to get the effects they want, or even using different devices/models to get different images, and retaking it multiple times to get something theyre happy with, then touching it up in editing software.

I mean i think i explained myself quite well already, and not to be insulting to you, but i dont think you’re willing to accept any argument i would make that goes against what you already beleive, since your argument against it simply you asserting your own beliefs (that AI art isnt art) as an immutable fact

I think my analogy is more accurate

Personally dont think that’s a good comparison. I would say it’s more like taking a photo and claiming you know how to paint. You’re still actually cre a ting something, but using a digital tool that does it for you. You chose the subject and fiddle with setting to get a better image closer to what you want and then can take it into software to edit it further.

Its art in its own right, but you shouldn’t directly compare it to painting.

I was never taught what log tables actually are. Anytime logarithms were brought it, it was just “type it in to your calculator and it will tell you”

Same with using a calculator, no? Or not memorising log tables.

You can give the cards whatever spec you want, but if no one can buy them it doesn’t matter.

One of the ways people use chatGPT is like a search engine. Would you consider someone lazy and stupid for goggling how to clean correctly?

Well it’s trained off how people on the internet speak so…

I just want them to make a true flagship phone. I personally wouldn’t mind paying extra for a more ethical phone, if it had all the bells and whistles and wasn’t half obsolete straight out of the box.

Lol. Lmao, even

We need you back in the fight soldier, we need to make cat girls (and boys) a reality.

And OP speaks for all disabled people or something?

You’re the one that’s against riots mate