YouTube: “You can no longer say fuck! That should make advertisers happy!”

And yet it’s still the best-worst option for hosting on-demand video.

“The reality is that this guy (who is independently wealthy) did no actual work..”

Don’t forget to have an annoying looking shocked face of a human on the thumbnail and bright colours behind them irrelevant to the actual content.

Will they fix this? The answer may surprise you!

Cool, now fix the algorithm so people don't have to put stupid clickbaity titles in order to show up in more feeds. 

Man, if only there was a way to tag videos as not for kids, who tend to be immature. Some way that clearly signals the intended audience to viewers. That way, advertisers could have some way of knowing who is watching a given video and what kind of ads would be appropriate to them.

Even the most epic hate fucking of all time can only carry a relationship for so long.

Whoever insisted commercial art isn't art is an asshole that doesn't respect labor or craft.

How do you eat if you can’t work?

Thinking of AI as a highly skilled amateur is exactly what the scammers who want to replace real artists with algorithms want you to do. It is also entirely incorrect.

“Highly skilled amateurs” don’t illegally scrape hundreds of thousands of works from other people without their knowledge or consent.

“When did everyone suddenly go from insisting commercial art isn’t art”

That... is a fundamentally stupid argument, especially in this context. 

They did prove their point though: The point of this AI is to *not hire artists in the first place*

It’s working exactly they way they want.  And that’s the problem.

I have to imagine it is, because it’s either that or it’s people who would have shat all over NFTs unironically making the same exact arguments that crypto bros were using. It’s pretty fucking gross.

Have you taken art study classes? You don’t just look at the paintings, you talk and hear about their context and the techniques used, and things like perspective and where’s the vanishing point and WHY the painters did these things.

It’s literally the exact same people pushing this. And of course they’re recycling the same tired arguments. If they were creative enough to come up with new arguments, why would they need AI?

Overtly defining AI-generated images as “plagiarism” seems like a slippery slope that could lead to any art provably influenced by another person’s art as plagiarism.

I think this is all I need to say.