Eccitaze

I'd give strange new worlds a pass as being better than Orville, but yeah, it's definitely the exception to the rule.

What evidence is there that gen AI hasn't peaked? They've already scraped most of the public Internet to get what we have right now, what else is there to feed it? The AI companies are also running out of time--VCs are only willing to throw money at them for so long, and given the rate of expenditure on AI so far outpaces pretty much every other major project in human history, they're going to want a return on investment sooner rather than later. If they were making significant progress on a model that could do the things you were saying, they would be talking about it so that they could buy time and funding from VCs. Instead, we're getting vague platitudes about "AGI" and meaningless AI sentience charts.

Jokes and (valid) worries about how many men are still supporting this dumpster fire aside... A poll like this has got to be setting off the fire alarms at Trump campaign HQ and I am giddy as hell to see it. The last time Democrats came this close to winning the overall male vote was 2008. If this margin holds out we could be looking at an absolute blowout (or at least as close as one gets in today's climate). Shame the Senate map means we won't get a 60-seat Senate, though...

I actually had some thoughts about this and posted this in a similar thread:

First, that artist will only learn from a few handful of artists instead of every artist's entire field of work all at the same time. They will also eventually develop their own unique style and voice--the art they make will reflect their own views in some fashion, instead of being a poor facsimile of someone else's work.

Second, mimicking the style of other artists is a generally poor way of learning how to draw. Just leaping straight into mimicry doesn't really teach you any of the fundamentals like perspective, color theory, shading, anatomy, etc. Mimicking an artist that draws lots of side profiles of animals in neutral lighting might teach you how to draw a side profile of a rabbit, but you'll be fucked the instant you try to draw that same rabbit from the front, or if you want to draw a rabbit at sunset. There's a reason why artists do so many drawings of random shit like cones casting a shadow, or a mannequin doll doing a ballet pose, and it ain't because they find the subject interesting.

Third, an artist spends anywhere from dozens to hundreds of hours practicing. Even if someone sets out expressly to mimic someone else's style, teaches themselves the fundamentals, it's still months and years of hard work and practice, and a constant cycle of self-improvement, critique, and study. This applies to every artist, regardless of how naturally talented or gifted they are.

Fourth, there's a sort of natural bottleneck in how much art that artist can produce. The quality of a given piece of art scales roughly linearly with the time the artist spends on it, and even artists that specialize in speed painting can only produce maybe a dozen pieces of art a day, and that kind of pace is simply not sustainable for any length of time. So even in the least charitable scenario, where a hypothetical person explicitly sets out to mimic a popular artist's style in order to leech off their success, it's extremely difficult for the mimic to produce enough output to truly threaten their victim's livelihood. In comparison, an AI can churn out dozens or hundreds of images in a day, easily drowning out the artist's output.

And one last, very important point: artists who trace other people's artwork and upload the traced art as their own are almost universally reviled in the art community. Getting caught tracing art is an almost guaranteed way to get yourself blacklisted from every art community and banned from every major art website I know of, especially if you're claiming it's your own original work. The only way it's even mildly acceptable is if the tracer explicitly says "this is traced artwork for practice, here's a link to the original piece, the artist gave full permission for me to post this." Every other creative community writing and music takes a similarly dim views of plagiarism, though it's much harder to prove outright than with art. Given this, why should the art community treat someone differently just because they laundered their plagiarism with some vector multiplication?

You literally haven't, except maybe by sticking your fingers in you ears and going "NUH UH"

but go on king

Here's the point since you clearly missed it:

If Brave gets even a moderate market share, Google will continue to mess them around like this as they really don't like people not seeing their adverts.

Ultimately it's software, so the Brave devs can do pretty much whatever they want, limited by the available time and money. Google's influence extends to making that either easier or harder, it much the same way as they influence the Android ecosystem.

Brave may not be particularly affected by this change, but that's besides the point. If Brave starts becoming a viable threat to Google, Google can easily start making changes to Chromium that target Brave and breaks the changes they make, just like they targeted uBlock Origin and broke it with manifest v3. Brave might be able to work around these changes, but it costs time and developer labor (i.e. money) that would have been spent elsewhere, and if Google makes things hard enough on Brave they could be forced to abandon the project.

The only way I could buy it is if it came out that it was faked, but their plan involved keeping the gunman alive so he could spout fake-leftist buzzwords and they either didn't realize that the secret service shoots to kill, or forgot to clue them into the plan ahead of time.

This shit right here is why I hate to argue about labels or whether someone is/isn't liberal/leftist/centrist/conservative/whatever. At best, they're an extremely vague, ill-defined, hyper-individualized label that means different things to different people. One person says "I'm a leftist," and they mean it as "I'm a progressive Democrat who supports heavily regulated capitalism, labor unions, LGBT rights, and am pro-choice." Another person says "I'm a leftist," and they mean it as "I'm an anarcho-communist who believes billionaires should forcibly redistribute their wealth, and I don't give a rat's ass about LGBT or minority rights because they're a bourgeoisie distraction from class consciousness."

I don't care about your label, I care about your policies. Those actually tell me something about you.

I personally did read it that way, but I will concede that perhaps I was being uncharitable.

Regardless, I have seen people explicitly questioning whether it was faked elsewhere, and it makes me cringe every time. Talking about this serves literally zero purpose--it makes the left look crazy, any alternative explanations that make Trump look bad fall apart under the barest scrutiny, and it just serves to keep the assassination attempt in peoples' minds. There are literally hundreds of other things to complain about Trump over, talking about this doesn't help.

I think the mod v. user viewpoint is why moderators are so cagey and timid about banning the Usual Suspects. I remember when mods actually followed through and temp banned one of them (iirc it was givesomefucks?) and pretty much all of Lemmy lost their collective shit. If you just read that one thread, you'd have left with the impression that Lemmy mods were a bunch of far-right, protofascist, power tripping assholes hellbent on silencing dissent.

The lesson I took from that episode is that Lemmy has a sizable, vocal minority that either agrees with what the Usual Suspects are saying, or at minimum don't think it's banworthy. They might also think there needs to be a bright line rule violation (and either don't recognize or don't care that every good troll is well-versed in skirting the rules and gently pushing the line, but almost never clearly steps over them).

Okay, but what's the alternative? Trump faked the whole thing in some sort of false flag? He planted a fake gunman to get killed by the secret service, and put two of his close supporters in the hospital in critical condition, for a bump in the polls, when he was already confident that he could beat Biden? Is that really a more plausible explanation than "someone decided to kill Trump over the Epstein files, missed, and was killed"? I absolutely hate the guy, buy I just don't buy it. I can accept "he got hit by a shard of glass instead of a bullet" or "he got grazed elsewhere and it just looks like he was hit in the ear" but claiming the whole thing was faked is just a bridge too far.

We're supposed to be above this type of shaky conspiracy theory level thinking.

In the show just before these were taken, Omni-Man got in a fight with another hero named The Immortal, where The Immortal went for the eyes and tried to blind him by gouging them out. It definitely hurt him, but it didn't work, and Omni-Man ripped The Immortal in half shortly afterwards. (He got better.)