I’m sure filling the sky with literal brimstone will have no lasting negative effects, ironic or otherwise.

Sure, but using pro snowboarders instead of voice actors was a creative choice, and it was a bad one.

Guess you’ll have to find somewhere else to bitch.

For me the biggest issue is just that it completely abandons the tone of Tolkien in favor of generic “mystery box” storytelling that doesn’t fit the material at all. 

Not likely.

Wouldn’t Philip K. Dick be more appropriate?

Wow, did you really just ban me from Gizmodo for arguing with you about this?  Now THAT is cowardice.

So if they agreed to share the image online, then they agreed it can be viewed. By me, by you, and by whatever machine learning algorithm you want to look at it.

AI Art is not like a human creating art because AI Art is produced by a CODE that STEALS art, not an Artist who takes Inspiration from other artists. if you can’t see the difference between those two things then we can’t be friends/talk about this further.

inspiration is different from scraping

Do they have to agree to have it fed into your eyes?

And you could describe a lot of derivative art made by actual people the same way, particularly in the advertising industry. Your only ethical leg to stand on here is an old one: the implications of automating a job done by people. This is a new front in an old war, but you don’t seem to be willing to contextualize it…

To the “fast and cheap” point, I do think there is an argument to be made in terms of the age-old issue of automation eliminating working-class jobs. But this isn’t a new issue now any more than it was when the automotive industry was mechanizing the assembly line.

How is this any less ethical than me looking at all those artists’ work, then creating an entirely derivative, but still unique, work of my own for solely commercial reasons and with no artistic intent beyond selling the works? Neither credits the original artists whose work was the source of the derived work, nor ads…

That’s a pretty vague statement. I’d like to see some facts to elaborate on just who and how they’re being impacted.  

I don’t see why they need to apologize to anyone.  If they want to start using soulless bad art for their products instead of good art, then that’s their decision to decrease the quality of their products.  People can decide for themselves if that impacts their buying decisions.

He was always going to testify remotely.

He did give to Republicans.  He just did it quietly because no one wants to be associated with Republicans.  

There’s literally not one word in this article about how to fix your phone’s broken charger port.

Republicans too, he just kept those donations quieter because no one wants to be seen consorting with Republicans.