True or not, I don’t mind eating less red meat, wouldn’t hurt to do so.

That’s way too expensive. I guess regional pricing did me good because here it costs an equivalent of $3.75 (RM 17.90). That much for Premium + Music ain’t no way I’m not taking it.

Spotify costs $3.35 (RM 15.90).

I mean, do you really have to consume the content on a platform that you dislike?

Those who disagree with what YouTube is doing, why don’t you stop using it? No views = creators are forced to find another platform.

I think working around their service T&C is just as scummy as anti-adblocks.

I paid for Overwatch too but tbh I’d rather have Overwatch 2. There’s no loot box bullcrap and the playerbase now is actually pretty sizeable now compared to OW1 near the end.

I do miss the free rewards but they’re just cosmetics. A bigger playerbase is more beneficial to the game than more free skins.

I don’t really care about online AI services. I only run stuff locally (Stable Diffusion, LLaMA). No surveillance there.

It’s really not a problem. We have both open source and proprietary solutions for generative AI. If you have the hardware for it, you can generate images locally for free. If you don’t, just use one of the many available services.

It’s literally giving the power of expression to almost everyone, including artists.

Also let’s not talk about jobs/money. Technology replacing jobs isn’t something new and that’s what humanity should strive toward.

You got that backwards. Fuck copyright. Nothing should be copyrighted.

What if ChatGPT claims that the generated text are a compilation from various sources and not its own? Do you need permission to read and summarize an article?

Overwatch 2 is great so it’s not all bad.

Why do you want OW1 back?

Exactly

Nvidia: Creates a whole new app for driver updates and ShadowPlay.

Also Nvidia: Creates the most half-assed GPU tuner in the app.

Seriously I can’t even undervolt without a third party app. Once PyTorch + ROCm comes to Windows I’m switching back to AMD.

Never said that.

If you took a random concept and explained it to a person they could using their existing knowledge set, draw it somewhat competently. That is because people are able to apply knowledge to make something new.

Theoretically it can, but it would involve meticulous and proper labeling of each training data. Currently most of the trained data are automatically labeled and they’re not descriptive/verbose enough. I believe the improvements from the latest version of DALL-E is due to OpenAI’s use of a more advanced image labeler.

If you knew the exact terms to get the the AI to recreate something in its training data, it could, 1:1.

That’s because you told it to. Don’t make it recreate existing art then.

And if you ask it to create you something new, no matter what parameters you use it will look like a mess of garbage data.

This is not always true. You can train it on a certain style and a photo of a random object, then have it generate an image of the random object in that style. It will “understand” the concept of a style and an object.

ultimately all the capitalists running these tools see it as is another method to bring the public under their exclusive and totalitarian control.

Exactly why I’m not supporting the closed source paid services (Midjourney, ChatGPT, Bing Chat, DALL-E etc.) and instead advocate for open source projects like Stable Diffusion and LLaMA.

Saying training generative AI models on artists’ work as stealing artwork.

It’s only stealing if you make it generate the copyrighted art and claim it as yours. Otherwise, it’s not any different than artists being inspired by existing art.

Let’s not bring that X/Twitter shit to Lemmy.

I’ve only ever subscribed to Bilibili. I think it’s still fine so I’ll keep my subscription for now.