Blocking google would make sense

I couldn’t care less about you giving no shit about being a shit person for shitting on voluntary work. You could just have put the constructive criticism. Putting valid reasons doesn’t justify throwing in an invalid one

Constructive criticism is different than talking shit. Still a useless debate

Nice strawman btw

You’re welcome

What a useless debate. Anyway they were asking why I was “condescending”, well if you shit on a voluntary work, just because it’s not at your taste, you are a shit person

It’s the cause, not an excuse

Removed by mod

The whole point of the app is to not have to pay a subscription

Because “overall ugly” is not a constructive comment. They may not like it, that’s okay, not a reason to shit on the app

Yes it does feel a bit incomplete

Removed by mod

Yes it is true

It has many good applications, but many places where more an annoyance than a feature

May seem stupid, but after 15 min of using it I didn’t find how to subscribe to an ical calendar nor how to sync to an existing calendar account, so basically how to use it. Also some things are weird like holidays being available only in one language in multilingual countries or distinctions between birthdays and anniversaries which I am not sure I understand

What’s the use of active sync ?

Does it support schools microsoft exchange ?

Black mirror was never a scifi series, rather a warning

Basically patreon for opensource? Or are there some key differences?

I agree with what @[email protected] said here. My argument is the same than what you’ve already heard: since it doesn’t take the original images, but rather learn from them, it acts as a human who also learns from many different images and it would make no sense to copyright all artists that a human is trained on. Also it’s true that a human artist also has his own experience that also influence the art while the neural network only has the art, however, the ai artist will provide this personal experience. So imo you shouldn’t consider image generations as plagiarism.

Though, I do agree that having people scraping your art to train a model on it is frustrating, even though it was already the case with people training on your art for their personal experience. In the case of a model it’s way more similar to the original art pieces. I haven’t made my mind on the ehtics of model training, but generating is not plagiarism in my opinion.

Anyway, my original stance was on generative ai to be used as art and not on it being plagiarism or not. Generative ai brings a say to make full pictures with minimal effort and some people generate hundreds of unoriginal similar images. Imo, since it is easy to have a final image, the artistic effort is elsewhere: the composition, originality of the subjects, mixing of new techniques: regional prompt, lora, controlnet, etc., mixing with other tools : photoshop, blender, animation, etc. You definitely can make art with generative ai, and it takes more time that it looks like. (Look up a video on comfyui, sdnext or invokeai to see example of workflows)

Both neural networks and the current state of ai art