EmilieEasie

I want to follow this!

And now that they've done that (or acquired them), poof! You get it when you get it! A familiar pattern.

In your case then yeah get that refund lol!

I worry about that hitting the small sellers on there sometimes, like I ordered something through Amazon recently that very clearly came from a 3rd party small business and it's a quality product. It got mixed up when I returned something else, and they were like "just keep the refund for both" :/ but I'm worried the 3rd party won't get paid for it now

Anyone else remember when they used to give you a refund if it didn't come in 2 days? Lol

I definitely didn't mean that I wish there was just one individual person who swore off AI haha I'm definitely aware that is a thing, but I'm glad to hear it anyway

Right, so they can say "over 7,000 child abuse images of her were created, allegedly by her step father" but they don't. They make it sound like her entire claim is in doubt.

Two things, 1. I'm a little confused by all the "she claims" and "alleged" language. I think it would be easy to verify the images exist, in which case the only claims up in the air is who actually created the images, and 2. I feel like if we lived in a healthy society, people would say "wow that's what these tools are being used for? Then I swear off of them until they can be made safe at a minimum." The degree to which people just dgaf will never not be shocking to me, but they especially dgaf what happens to women and children

Yeah, it can be both, like, if you want to argue that in our current capitalist society people need to be compensated fairly for their work, I'll hear that argument, but I don't think it's the best or most accurate framing. I think it's just as obnoxious reddit made a deal with google to train on my (and everyone else's) comments throughout the website as I do the possibility it was trained on my artwork, and I'm not alone in that.

His other comment applies just as easily to to stolen medical images, like this woman's , as it does more creative works. It feels violating either way. Virtually no one is worried about Mickey Mouse appearing in data sets, but lots of people do feel wronged when their emails are trained on without permission or compensation, even though they're not really IPs.

AI training is data theft not IP theft

Oh that's the actual headline lol.

I thought it would be like they paid some people with some ties to fascist groups but some plausible deniability...

But no. Full mask off.