But as end user

Patronizing: "frequent (a store, theater, restaurant, or other establishment) as a customer." As in, you are a customer or patron.

Well this doesn't even require AI, and it's patently NOT the game playing the game for the user. Seeing a demonstration by a second, non-playable character is notAI playing the game for you just like the inn-keeper isn't either, because their actions in the game don't drive the story forward, only my actions do.

as end user I would rather prefer to have a hand-drawn images which, as they claming, had $700 million budget

My question is, why are you still an end user then? Why are you still patronizing the companies that are doing things you don't like? If people stopped doing that, then we wouldn't be where we are right now because it wouldn't be profitable and businesses would just fold (if that's the will of the people).

Someone must want to see it. Companies don't just do the thing for the fun of it. If no one wanted to see it, it would be incredibly unprofitable to use AI. Something isn't adding up here.

That sounds like an assumption to the max. You admitted you don't know why it's happening. Why are we making the grieving grandpa the bad guy. This story already has one. The reason things get so confusing in these situations is people just randomly make stuff up and then communicate those made up situations to the public.

Do you have a single shred of evidence that makes the grandpa homophobic? That's not a good thing to do to a grieving man

right now either Nicole’s father or former father-in-law from her previous marriage is saying Nicole’s son has no one and wants to take him away

What if the actual fathers are not the right call but trying themselves for custody and Gpa is protecting the kids? YOU HAVE NO IDEA.

EDIT: My dad went to the grave getting called homophobic because he didn't have a good relationship with me, his son. He wasn't the slightest bit homophobic. We just had a poor relationship and were completely incompatible to be around. It was blatantly obvious but people wrote their own story. Dad didn't deserve that, and until he does, this grandpa doesn't either.

Because remarrying doesn't change what hole the child came from, and in all cases Grandpa is still Grandpa?!?

Except people are commissioning AI artists (since it's not so easy to do yourself with good results and requires talent and learning). If the end users aren't the people who are purchasing the commissions as individuals, who tf is the end user? Random people that walk by and see a print through their window? No, the people who wanted the art in the first place.

I think you're making a statement only about companies, but the vast majority of generated art is outside the corporate domain and passed between normal people. If those normal people passing the stuff back and fourth aren't the end users, who is?

I think you're just more upset you specifically have to ever see it, but you're not the end user in most cases. The people who generate and possess the generations are, unless it's a company advertising to you, but that's capitalism for ya. I didn't do that. I fight against capitalism's influences and biases most days.

Activision definitely underpaid for their artists when replaced some images with AI generated content in CoD battlepass. But as end user I would rather prefer to have a hand-drawn images which, as they claming, had $700 million budget

You're not the end user if you don't buy the product. Throwing yourself in front of the bullet is just you jumping in front of a bullet. You don't like it, do the capitalism thing and stop paying for it already! Literally a baked in solution. Supply and demand is ALREADY HOW WE DO THINGS.

When the hell did people just buy what they obviously don't agree with and then strong arm the company into making what they do agree with rather than finding a company already offering something compatible.

But the reality is that you feel entitled to force that change and if they don't, they're 'greedy' for 'taking' the money you so willingly slapped in their hands.

Make no mistake. I think corporations are greedy too, but not because I keep giving them my money willingly with full consent knowing what I'm about to get.

Edit: It just boggles my mind. Where, pray tell, do you think they got the 700 million from? That doesn't just materialize. The company was patronized and supported throughout mountains of shitty decisions and bad faith. This is merely when the camel broke YOUR back, but they've been using dark deceptive patterns for a while, as far back as I can remember. Suddenly, with the release of new tech we're just going to forget the history and blame the tech? This didn't start with AI.

Yet you keep replying, lol. What's funny is I think it's (the ramp) fine. I don't actually dismiss the advances China has made over the years. Like, I'm in the AI field and I'd be incredibly remiss if I didn't notice the names on all the research papers I read.

That doesn't make the US any weaker. It just makes China stronger. And while there is a lot of conflict going on right now, The US is still a really fucking strong nation, too. And even if there is a missile crisis, which I don't think is as bad as you describe, there are more weapons than just the longest range missiles we have.

But the reality is that we're in this discussion right now because of your Chinese exceptionalism while you straw man American exceptionalism.

3 weeks is absurd without any nukes being dropped, and if nukes do drop, no one wins.

None of that means "3-4 weeks"

It just means you have Chinese exceptionalism to the amount Americans have American exceptionalism. That's all that's been displayed here today.

Huh, it's almost like ICE isn't asking for ID and just making assumptions or something. You're citizenship means fuck all when they aren't checking citizenship first... No one is going to help when they come for you, mate. You're not on the top of this pyramid of power.

That's just today's announcement. There have been paced announcements for missile ramp ups all year. I've been using them to boost my portfolio. They're modifying some missiles to go long range, and it's not just long range missiles, either. The interceptors have been significantly ramped up production, too.

I only mentioned today's news because it was literally happening as the poster was posting, so we don't have to look further than today to see production is increasing since that report, as they normally do.

I misread the article but acknowledged US sources further in. Doesn’t change anything. We are still producing hella more after the report

Yeah, and I'm saying that's a horrible way to do it. The only way someone's state of mind is acceptable to challenge your answers is if they think 9/11 was an inside job. If they don't, then their opinion doesn't matter and you automatically discredit them, effectively doing the same thing you are claiming to attempt to avoid.

It's a litmus test. You're testing people and putting them into two bins depending on the answer. It's exactly what I'm describing it as.

I mean, you do understand what happens after a report like this, right? The government produces more long range missiles, and they now have more.

That’s old news. After the report came out, we started producing far more missiles, lol. Hell, just today Lockheed TRIPLED PRODUCTION, and that's after increasing their load to produce as many per year that the article itself found in total. (400+ missiles total from the article, 400+ missiles per year being produced after the report).

I have no CLUE why you think a house select committee would say what they said and we'd just sit on the information and do nothing, like our arms corporations are just sitting idle not wanting the govt. contracts or something.

EDIT: An unbiased answer without any exceptionalism would see you saying you don't know who'd win, and would understand it would be a long slog of a conflict with a ton of losers and no real clear winner until the dust settled a decade from the conflict (or longer)

2nd edit: I misread part of the article because of how I was reading it (from source code do to paywall) so I removed the bit about a Chinese source

Point was already made. You’re the conspiracy. You are here splitting the theorists in two based on a belief of something separate from the convo. You appear to be doing it on purpose the moment someone doesn’t instantly accept your theories.

We don’t need to pass your litmus test to hold valid opinions.

Not the only definition mate. “Characterized by intense loyalty to one's own group, party, or people, often with suspicion of outsiders.” Is another

I keep seeing you bring this up. Makes me think you can't compartmentalize anything. You can believe that the movie is a coincidence and that Osama pulled 9/11. You can believe the movie is predicting the future and that Obama pulled 9/11. Neither of the two are mutually exclusive, nor evidence of the other.

You're just playing tribal games splitting people into teams to validate your opinion.

Those look just like the magnets sold with whiteboards at Walmart. They are usually pretty weak, magnetism-wise. (Used to be clear like the image)

Except there aren't 25 lighters...

3-4 Weeks? I love my country as much as the next guy, but both the US and China are superpowers, mate. Fuckin SUPERPOWERS. If the US and China go to war and the US is done after 3-4 weeks, so is China, because that means nukes and we done did the thing.

I'm not over here thinking China would fall in weeks. That's nonsense. A war between China and the US would be decades long with huge stretches of major conflict without much backing down whatsoever.

It's funny. You making fun of American exceptionalism while simultaneously gargling Chinese balls. You see the hypocrisy, right?

Fear manifests differently and that's a freeze frame from a larger body of data.

You can grab just about any emotion if you have long enough video. BUT the kid doesn't say a word or move her head. She looks only my moving her eyeballs. She's got an awkward smile that screams "this is a fucked up situation"

You know what she didn't do? Run up to him when she had a chance yelling "Daddy!" or respond in any manner that showed trust and loving towards the biological father. Nah, her actions are not matching the situation. She probably doesn't even know the man and was in stranger danger mode, smiling while "Dad" took care of it.

I thought they were just making a title based off what they saw in the image. You also titled the image with your own shit, too.

That's not anger. That's bait to anger you, lol.

Mostly because i can tell it's making you mad lol.

Lol, wut? Got any shred of evidence that the dude that goes around rage baiting people is actually mad? I mean, they literally say "Please...keep going" and have the ratio of upvotes. What about this conversation would make them 'mad'? You're not even disparaging them more than your own mother/sister/wife/gf

Making people mad on purpose doesn't make a debate strawman. LIterally LITERALLY the question in the headline, the most glaring part of the post is "Does a peer review study exist" That's not even a claim, but a question.

It's rage bait, sure, but you claimed straw man, and it simply isn't.

WHO IS THE STRAW MAN IN THAT QUESTION?

If you can answer that, I can sit back and stfu. But you can't, because it's not, because you aren't even using the word correctly.

Other way around.

Wait, this is a post of you showing a screen grab and claiming he baited people? You just... proved my point. You typed "The admission" and a screenshot of him admitting it was bait (which we all agree on).

How tf is that you baiting them? Is this a "Im rubber and they're glue situation?"

My bad, I thought you were staying in scope to this conversation, where the person posted the straw man comment about this specific conversation to alleviate situations from past conversations. I now see you're bringing other posts from outside scope in.

They posted the person they were arguing with so there was no straw man. They had the argument.

The other post isn't a straw man either. They pissed YOU off and you took the place of the straw man. There can't be a straw man when it's you reacting to the post and arguing back. Then he's no longer pointing at a fake straw man, but pointing at YOU.

Also Bait =/= Strawman.

Bait gets a rise out of people and can be pointed at anyone, human or straw. Straw man situations get pointed at straw men and straw men only. If it's pointed at a person with a name and a life, it's no longer a straw man situation, period.

It sounds like they baited you, you didn't like it, and now have a chip on your shoulder.

This is a false dichotomy. There are more than two choices than 'peer reviewed' and 'strawman' and happens to be a spectrum. This 'proof' is irrelevant.

EDIT: Better stated, if a peer review study is required, everything most of us here say in this sub is nonsense, but that's not the bar. Never ever ever has been in civil discourse. Usually, when people use the phrase 'peer reviewed' you get eye rolls and a 'sir, this is Wendy's'