Not arguing with your point but “killed to death” sounds like an awesome metal band name
313 karma · joined July 11, 2023
No it's depending on the intention of the person wearing those same breasts. This is very clearly non-consentual presentation of an individual in a sexy pose. There's an argument to be had about female nudity, but this is separate from getting visually stripped by a computer without your consent.
Because I know people that work there, and money surely isn't the first reason you are teaching a bunch of brats while having parts of the public look down on you if you can easily get double the amount somewhere outside of the field. Same for political work, crowdsourcing, .. People take gratification in doing something that matters to society. Yes, they want to survive, but they are quite often not doing it for the money, the money is a nice bonus and enables to do it full-time, but that is not always the reason you do it.
Also you are goalpost moving, you said first they are only doing it only for themselves not for "the company", and people often do it for the institution that employs them. Not because they are paid, but because they believe they are doing something that matters.
Because you can overload any online discussion / sphere with that. There were so many that X effectively banned searching for her at all because if you did, you where overwhelmed by very extreme fake porn. Everybody can do it with very low entry barrier, it looks very believable, and it can be generated in high quantities.
We shouldn't have clamped down on photoshop, but realisticly two things would be nice in your theoretical case, usage restrictions and public information building. There was no clear cut point where photoshop was so mighty you couldn't trust any picture online. There were skills to be learned and people could identify the trickery, and it was on a very small scale and gradual. And the photo trickery was around for ages, even Stalin did it.
But creating photorealistic fakes in an automated fashion is completely new.
>If anything it seems a lot more democratic since he wants it to be available to everyone No, he want's a solution that minimizes contact to other people and let you live in your bubble. This minimizes exposure to others from the same city and is a commercial system, not a publicly created one. Democratization would be a cheap public transport where you don't get mugged, proven to work in every european and most asian cities.
> I admit I don't know anything about this one The cybertruck. Again a vehicle to isolate you from everyday life being supposed bulletproof and all.
> lots of republicans including Trump do the same thing, and they're not libertarian They are all "little government, individual choice" - of course they feed their masters, but the kochs and co want exactly this.
Appreciate the exchange too, thanks for factbased formulation of opinions.
"Wrongly denied" in this case depends on your point of view, clearly DALL-E didn't want this combination of words created, but you have no right for creation of these prompts.
I'm the last one defending large monolithic corps, but if you go to one and want to be free to do whatever you want you are already starting from a very warped expectation.