One point three two emm bee 😁
riskable
joined 2 years ago
Looks funny with a green hose and a yellow nozzle but a lot of bidet tools are just a spray nozzle on a (usually white-ish) hose. The nozzle is more of the kitchen sink variety but it's really not that different.
The real problem with this setup is the hose and nozzle are under the seat! No reason for that... Just keep it off to the side.
TL;DR: This setup will work fine. Maybe use a light touch on that handle though 😉
The most ardent religious adherents insist that atheists have no morals. They have no idea what they're talking about. The truth is that they listen intently to an atheist with no morals every time to go to church.
What could possibly make him more popular?
With the ghost of solvents past.
He gets to stay in the US, at least 🤷
To be fair, the "vandals" were just doing the Republicans a favor by taping the correct symbol to their door.
Straight up: It wasn't actually vandalism. Like handing out Russian flags at a conservative event:
If you hired someone to copy Ghibli's style, then fed that into an AI as training data, it would completely negate your entire argument.
It is not illegal for an artist to copy someone else's style. They can't copy another artist's work—that's a derivative—but copying their style is perfectly legal. You can't copyright a style.
All of that is irrelevant, however. The argument is that—somehow—training an AI with anything is somehow a violation of copyright. It is not. It is absolutely 100% not a violation of copyright to do that!
Copyright is all about distribution rights. Anyone can download whatever TF they want and they're not violating anyone's copyright. It's the entity that sent the person the copyright that violated the law. Therefore, Meta, OpenAI, et al can host enormous libraries of copyrighted data in their data centers and use that to train their AI. It's not illegal at all.
When some AI model produces a work that's so similar to an original work that anyone would recognize it, "yeah, that's from Spirited Away" then yes: They violated Ghibli's copyright.
If the model produces an image of some random person in the style of Studio Ghibli that is not violating anyone's copyright. It is not illegal nor is it immoral. No one is deprived of anything in such a transaction.
I think your understanding of generative AI is incorrect. It’s not just “logic and RNG”...
If it runs on a computer, it's literally "just logic and RNG". It's all transistors, memory, and an RNG.
The data used to train an AI model is copyrighted. It's impossible for something to exist without copyright (in the past 100 years). Even public domain works had copyright at some point.
if any of the training data is copyrighted, then attribution must be given, or at the very least permission to use this data must be given by the current copyright holder.
This is not correct. Every artist ever has been trained with copyrighted works, yet they don't have to recite every single picture they've seen or book they've ever read whenever they produce something.
To be fair, that entire industry, wines about everything.
I'm still not getting it. What does generative AI have to do with attribution? Like, at all.
I can train a model on a billion pictures from open, free sources that were specifically donated for that purpose and it'll be able to generate realistic pictures of those things with infinite variation. Every time it generates an image it's just using logic and RNG to come up with options.
Do we attribute the images to the RNG god or something? It doesn't make sense that attribution come into play here.
view more: next ›
Sorry, Catholics and Indians... It's better for America if the curse of JD Vance stays outside the country.
Surely, you have some enemies other than us, yes? Send him there.
Catholics: Please do feel free to send him straight to hell 👍