Duh. As these models get better they’ll become more widely used by enterprises to save costs. That’s why these tech companies spent so much developing them… to sell them. The solution isn’t banning AI btw, it’s providing UBI to those most affected
What’s UBI ?
Universal basic income
Universal Basic Income
Urinal … Infection
… Butthole … ?
thats why you shouldnt get your butthole peed on
They not going sell them, but lease them.
Tomato tomato. They use them for sales and revenue
The same NY Times suing Open AI for copyright infringement. Rules for thee, but not for me.
If the NY Times’ case has any merit, then the art generated by AI is also based on copyright infringing models.
The winners of a system don’t have an incentive to undermine the rules. Quite the opposite. The NYT wants these rules because it would benefit from them. There are at least 2 image generators that adhere to capitalist ethics. I don’t know what Claro uses, but I see no indication that they are being uppity.
Damn, good point, forgot about their lawsuit
Per the software website (which the article links to), I don’t see any mention of generative AI. Their “ai image intelligence” only makes mention of tagging images for SEO. https://www.pixometry.com/en/publishing/ai-image-intelligence/
Yeah, it’s basically a smart photo filter for color-correction, object cut-outs, masking, etc:
https://www.pixometry.com/en/pixometry-the-new-name-for-elpical-software/elpical-claro-pixometry/
This feels more like consolidating positions in an art department post-Photoshop because you don’t need photo editors to dodge and burn physical negatives in a darkroom any more.
They are just practicing using AI to help out with the workload
Good
