Why do you think interesting stories are mere window dressing? Window dressing is hiring famous actors and recording pretty faces in pretty places.

Now show us “the stick” method.

It’ll be more interesting.

Meh. If I have to watch an Oscar winner that has all those things but it’s the same old story that I’ve seen redone a thousand times forget it. I don’t care that the acting was fantastic or that the cinematography was absolutely the best. I still know what’s about to happen.

Comedy can be great no matter who is in it and the cinematography doesn’t matter. That’s because the dialogue needs to be fresh and clever or it just won’t be funny 🤷

Give me more weird and interesting sci fi and fantasy! Throw the fantastic writers and cinematography at that instead of "guaranteed minimum sales/viewers* like we’re currently living with for 90% of all movies and shows.

When incinerated in a waste incineration plant, they release climate-warming CO₂ into the atmosphere. Recycling is therefore the better option: Used plastics provide the raw materials for new ones, closing the loop.

Bullshit. Studies have shown that recycled plastics generate much more microplastics pollution than original stock.

There’s more to plastics than just recycling and CO2 emissions.

This new material needs equivalent microplastics testing before any sort of conclusion can be made about it being better.

Oh? Does he really want to set a legal precedent that a sitting president can undo the pardons of prior presidents?

Perhaps he’s on to something! 🤣

That’s fine! How would you keep things interesting?

Or are you just boring?

No, it could be true. AI—especially with .NET—tends to generate exceptionally verbose code. Especially if you use “AI best practices” such as telling the AI to ensure 100% code coverage. Then there’s the, “let’s not use any 3rd party libraries, because we are Microsoft” angle.

.NET is already one of the most absurdly verbose languages (only other widely-used language that’s worse is Java). Copilot could easily push it over the top 🤣

All it would take would be for Microsoft to have AI rewrite some of the core libraries.

Talk about the wrong response!

If they want people to not look away or do something else while the movie is playing you gotta keep it interesting.

Ya know, like perhaps making movies that aren’t just rehashes of the same old stories.

Make movies and shows that keep people on their toes!

Making a crime drama? Throw in some traveler from the future or a demon or both! Give the judge two heads because of a “merging accident” or something!

Putting together a horror movie? Throw in some romance among the monsters! Have them feed each other eyeballs or something!

Making an anime? Try something totally radical! Like a male protagonist with non-dark hair that has a personality, or make a couple—in love—who get stuck somewhere together, alone have actual sex (like normal teens would) or something!

Making a K-drama? Add a black guy and make him one of the main characters… Haha, just kidding! That would be too radical! That’d be just as extreme as making an anime that covers the time period a few years after “the hero” formed his harem!

Note that there’s more than one model to do pixel art and there’s pixel art LoRAs that do a decent job. There’s loads of flexibility when generating this kind of thing.

Also, you can just tell it to generate a thousand over like 10 minutes and pick the best one and use that as a base to improve upon. AI is just a single tool in the workflow.

I also want to point out that not everyone can just pay someone. Don’t be paternalistic: If people want to use AI in their workflow for any reason that’s their concern. To angrily throw your hands in the air and say, “I’m not touching it because AI!” is like giving free money to the big publishers.

You’re setting a completely unnecessary high bar, “you must be this rich to ride.”

This is my take at well, but not just for gaming… AI is changing the landscape for all sorts of things. For example, if you wanted a serious, professional grammar, consistency, and similar checks of your novel you had to pay thousands of dollars for a professional editor to go over it.

Now you can just paste a single chapter at a time into a FREE AI tool and get all that and more.

Yet here we are: Still seeing grammatical mistakes, copy & paste oversights, and similar in brand new books. It costs nothing! Just use the AI FFS.

Checking a book with an AI chat bot uses up as much power/water as like 1/100th of streaming a YouTube Short. It’s not a big deal.

The Nebula Awards recently banned books that used AI for grammar checking. My take: “OK, so only books from big publishers are allowed, then?”

If you use a pixel art export node in ComfyUI that won’t be a problem. There’s a whole guide about it here:

https://inzaniak.github.io/blog/articles/the-pixel-art-comfyui-workflow-guide.html

Every modern monitor has some memory in it. They have timing controllers and image processing chips that need DRAM to function. Not much, but it is standard DDR3/DDR4 or LPDDR RAM.

No shit. There’s easier ways to open the fridge.

Hey, we don’t know he wasn’t born there this sure, right? I want to see his long-firm girth certificate!

He wants to be president of Venezuela? Sure! Let’s deport him there 👍

unless you consider every single piece of software or code ever to be just “a way of giving instructions to computers”

Yes. Yes I do. That’s exactly what code is: instructions. That’s literally how computers work. That’s what people like me (software developers) do when we write software: We’re writing down instructions.

When you click or move your mouse, you’re giving the computer instructions (well, the driver is). When you type a key, that’s resulting in an instruction being executed (dozens to thousands, actually).

When I click “submit” on this comment, I’m giving a whole bunch of computers some instructions.

Insert meme of, “you mean computers are just running instructions?” “Always have been.”

In Kadrey v. Meta (court case) a group of authors sued Meta/Anthropic for copyright infringement but the case was thrown out by the judge because they couldn’t actually produce any evidence of infringement beyond, “Look! This passage is similar.” They asked for more time so they could keep trying thousands (millions?) of different prompts until they finally got one that matched enough that they might have some real evidence.

In Getty Images v. Stability AI (UK), the court threw out the case for the same reason: It was determined that even though it was possible to generate an image similar to something owned by Getty, that didn’t meet the legal definition of infringement.

Basically, the courts ruled in both cases, “AI models are not just lossy/lousy compression.”

IMHO: What we really need a ruling on is, “who is responsible?” When an AI model does output something that violate someone’s copyright, is it the owner/creator of the model that’s at fault or the person that instructed it to do so? Even then, does generating something for an individual even count as “distribution” under the law? I mean, I don’t think it does because to me that’s just like using a copier to copy a book. Anyone can do that (legally) for any book they own, but if they start selling/distributing that copy, then they’re violating copyright.

Even then, there’s differences between distributing an AI model that people can use on their PCs (like Stable Diffusion) VS using an AI service to do the same thing. Just because the model can be used for infringement should be meaningless because anything (e.g. a computer, Photoshop, etc) can be used for infringement. The actual act of infringement needs to be something someone does by distributing the work.

You know what? Copyright law is way too fucking complicated, LOL!

Hmmm… That’s all an interesting argument but it has nothing to do with my comparison to YouTube/Netflix (or any other kind of video) streaming.

If we were to compare a heavy user of ChatGPT to a teenager that spends a lot of time streaming videos, the ChatGPT side of the equation wouldn’t even amount to 1% of the power/water used by streaming. In fact, if you add up all the usage of all the popular AI services power/water usage that still doesn’t add up to much compared to video streaming.

Sell? Only “big AI” is selling it. Generative AI has infinite uses beyond ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc.

Most genrative AI research/improvement is academic in nature and it’s being developed by a bunch of poor college students trying to earn graduate degrees. The discoveries of those people are being used by big AI to improve their services.

You seem to be making some argument from the standpoint that “AI” == “big AI” but this is not the case. Research and improvements will continue regardless of whether or not ChatGPT, Claude, etc continue to exist. Especially image AI where free, open source models are superior to the commercial products.

So we’re not blaming Grok/Xitter, then?

The article implied that the whole thing is because of Xitter’s AI. Not because there’s bad people that will use it.