Escalate to management as quickly as possible so you’re not just annoying some poor front desk worker that had nothing to do with it.

It’s already beatable right now, there are services in third world countries where people get paid fractions of a penny to solve captchas for machines.

Or I can pay nothing and get a plain video file that I can do anything I want with, and play on any device without needing a player. And as long as I keep that file backed up somewhere, I’ll always have a copy of it.

The TV business is struggling to learn the lesson the music industry learned a long time ago.

Even though the limitation on TPM is completely arbitrary, and anyone sufficiently savvy can bypass it in a few ways.

But most people are not that, so I guess the Linux crowd will embrace all those computers with open arms.

Doing a quick skim on my phone, your microphone quality is fine. I would probably lower the game audio in post a bit to make the sound more distinct, but it’s only noticeable when the game does loud stuff.

Accumulated knowledge in our society really is frail. Take a computer mouse, tons of people are involved in making them, they’re considered extremely simple tools. Yet not one person on the planet could go out into nature, get the natural resources required, and without help turn those resources into a working computer mouse.

I asked ChatGPT to generate a utopic looking city but make the buildings curvy. It got pretty close.

I’m not talking strictly about ideas, I’m talking about a human having a vision, and taking action to make that vision into something. Whether something is copyrightable requires a “human element,” which is the reasoning behind why machine or animal generated content cannot be copyrighted, because they lack that.

So the question is if someone tweaking an image, even if they’re merely selecting things, then is that a sufficient human element to say that a person had enough hand in creating it?

When it comes to selection, we already have a valid form of copyright which is explicitly that- compositions. If I take a bunch of royalty-free songs, and make a book of sheet music where I hand selected songs to be in that book, I can own a copyright on the composition without owning any of the featured material.

So, if someone selects a bunch of individual elements in an image using img2img, is that now a composition?

I accidentally submitted early, but also, I wrote out the lyrics. It’s the most bland version of those breakup-depression kind of songs imaginable. I guess people voted it as “feel-good” out of irony.

Sitting at my favorite cafe

Sipping my tea it’s saturday

Thinking about all he’s done, to everyone

This town is full of broken dreams

Shattered hopes, and silent screams

Somebody please help me

Betrayed by this town

Let’s tear it all down

We’re all just destined to fall

I’ve lost it all

Betrayed by this town

Let’s tear it all down

We’re all just destined to fall

We’ve lost it all

Alone in the streets, alone in my thoughts

Thinking of all our favorite spots

I thought someday things might turn around

But I was lost and never found

Betrayed by this town

Let’s tear it all down

We’re all just destined to fall

I’ve lost it all

Betrayed by this town

Let’s tear it all down

We’re all just destined to fall

We’ve lost it all

Faces painted with smiles

Lies are told

A facade of unity

A vitality sold

So I sit here in silence

Just wondering how

To rewrite the tales

This town won’t allow

Betrayed by this town

Let’s tear it all down

We’re all just destined to fall

I’ve lost it all

Betrayed by this town

Let’s tear it all down

We’re all just destined to fall

We’ve lost it all

I’ve lost it all

We’ve lost it all

I have a feeling they knew how this would be received considering it seems like they’re rage-baiting and acting pretentious to try and get attention.

Some AI generated images can require a lot of tweaking to get a final result. For example, someone might have a workflow that involves generating several images, then picking one as a base. They then take that base, and use img2img to rework certain parts to suit a vision before applying a set of post-processing effects in a traditional editor.

Or, they generate an image and use it as a base for some sort of more traditional art, or use AI generated elements in a work that is otherwise drawn traditionally.

There’s a lot of grey where I think just dismissing any creative vision is doing disrespect to the person that wanted to make something out of that vision, and put in a good amount of work outside just proompting and taking the first image that looked okay.

One of my favorite search ads that appeared in the mid 2000s happened when I was bored. I searched “grandpa” without any context just to see what would come up, because I really was that bored. One of the ads that appeared was one of those where they just shove your search in the title verbatim so someone not paying attention might think it was what they wanted.

It said something like “Looking for grandpa? Find great deals here!” I don’t remember exactly what the second part said, but the “Looking for grandpa?” part made me bust out laughing. I then started searching other random stuff to try and get something equally stupid, but it didn’t capture me quite the same way. Either way, my boredom was alleviated.

I don’t run a directly customer facing department anymore, but when I ran electronics I got to be both the employee that didn’t know much, and the one that tells you more than you asked for.

I went to college for network admin, but never actually landed a career in it because COVID hit right after I graduated. I’ve done a bit of everything with computers and can speak to a lot of things.

But I haven’t used every electronic device we sold or have even basic knowledge of some of them, so I had to fall back on “Well, a lot of people buy this one, so there’s probably something nice happening there.”

That’s not what they said, you’re presenting a false dichotomy. The truth is, in determining what another person feels, if you refuse to trust their words, then you can trust nothing. Yes, there are signals that hint at things that might lay below, but you cannot tell someone what their inner thoughts are better than they themselves.

In that vein, something often said of those who have killed themselves is “but I saw them yesterday and they looked so happy!” By your logic, if they looked happy they must have been happy, and just felt like ending it one day for no real reason.

I always think the revelation types that think they’re definitely getting saved before the apocalypse is funny. The Bible says 144,000 will be saved, but the current estimate of Christians on earth is about 2.2 billion from what I can find. So you just gotta hit that 0.006545% chance.

While they’re at it, they can go to the casino, bet their entire life savings on a single number on the roulette wheel, do that twice in a row, and their odds of winning that are 11x higher than being picked for rapture.

I like how for all the problems Brazil has, the consumer protection laws are consistently some of the best around.

Unless the original standard agrees and implements it, then you’ve just created a new standard.

Man, I already had a hard time justifying my YouTube Premium subscription. I literally only have it for putting on stuff to sleep to on my TV without some ad telling me Mr. Beast wants to give me $10,000 if i click.

But the worse this gets, the more I feel like an asshole for giving them a dime.

I don’t know anyone that actually thinks like that at store level.