That’s because when you just type “source?” and nothing else people perceive it as you challenging/denying the claim in a slightly hostile manner

I mean, sure, but that’s really easier said than done. Good luck getting good mental healthcare for cheap in the vast majority of places

The interesting thing though, is that technological life continuing leads to more entropy faster, not slower.

Is your argument that we should use generative AI to mislead people? To make fake videos and images and such to use as “proof”?

You’re definitively forgetting about other important insects for agriculture such as worms

This is just that zizek quote

I love heat pumps I love heat pumps I love heat pumps

(I agree! I do love tech connections. Although I’d argue that knowing how heat pumps work can be quite beneficial ^^ at least in my case)

Why would anyone want to watch AI generated content? What’s the point? I get using AI generation as a tool but if there’s no human intention behind it, just a pure algorithm, why even bother?

I know you wrote H and O, and not H2 and O2, but I’m going to assume the gas forms because those two substances pretty much cannot exist in their pure forms

And for those, O2 is necessary for our life, and H2 is non-toxic, it’s just very flammable. So I don’t know if the comparison fully works

Of course, you’re right if you mean pure H and pure O, but, again, they will immediately combine to form a new substance

I just want to point out that Greta Thunberg is 22 years old. She’s been an adult for 4 years now

Hell yeah. Being a slut is great

I mean, it is unironically a good question though. There’s no biological reason for why that can’t happen, and in fact, it would be more efficient! You’d be less exposed to predators etc

The actual answer is, of course, that there are other reasons for why it’s a longer activity. Such as, for example, it being about social bonding

People didn’t use to call those AI images. They used to call them images with a filter

Sure, some form of machine learning was involved, but so was your Google search for the previous decade. Unless one specifies what one means by AI, I still stand by my statement

In addition, OP’s image was still real, even if it had a filter on. A lot of people’s images have such filters on, especially since often they’re applied automatically. That’s the whole difference and the point

So I see people arguing whether this is AI or not and I just wanna say that

What people should take away from all of this is that we’re rapidly approaching a point where we’re simply unable to accurately determine whether something is generated or not. And we, as individuals and as a society, are not ready for that. We’re heading into a different world, and we better prepare for it, as well as re-examine our relationship to art and images before we’re forced to do so by the circumstances

That’s fair, but unless what you do requires windows in some way (like, say, Photoshop), Linux tends to be better for productivity as well, if you learn it

But of course, I understand that it takes some upfront work and learning to change your workflow, so I don’t blame people for not doing it

That’s mostly what I was referring to in my latter paragraph, yes

But the important takeaway is that it’s not the core of what pornography is

seeing violence is probably worse than seeing sex

Yes, I mean, one is (ideally) about two (or more) people enjoying time they have together in an intimate way, the other is about hurting one another maliciously. I certainly prefer one of these things to be more prominent than the other

There is a discussion to be had about stuff like objectification and porn that doesn’t depict people like, consenting, and such, but at least in an ideal I’d much rather have media that focuses on pleasure and love than hate and suffering

“you keep messing with that thing and it’ll fall off and you’ll turn into a girl”

On one hand, fucking horrible thing to say on a child

On the other… probably would not have the effect they would intend on a certin chunk of the population lmao

Why would that be a sign of wikipedia’s decline?

Should they not document a famous figure? It doesn’t matter whether it’s ridiculous or not, value judgement is not an encyclopedia’s place to do

Lmaooo, “popular”. I find it so funny when people unironically think that

Like, yeah, I’m just gonna go date and sleep with a person I’m not attracted to because it’s “popular”, lol

Though the fucked up thing is that, this is something that has happened with gay people trying to be straight