Would be weird if it was right. The youtube inner api doesn’t need an account, it’s the one that generates pages when you search on youtube or start video player
What a useless debate. Anyway they were asking why I was “condescending”, well if you shit on a voluntary work, just because it’s not at your taste, you are a shit person
It’s the cause, not an excuse
pixeldroid is okayish
The whole point of the app is to not have to pay a subscription
Because “overall ugly” is not a constructive comment. They may not like it, that’s okay, not a reason to shit on the app
Yes it does feel a bit incomplete
It has many good applications, but many places where more an annoyance than a feature
May seem stupid, but after 15 min of using it I didn’t find how to subscribe to an ical calendar nor how to sync to an existing calendar account, so basically how to use it. Also some things are weird like holidays being available only in one language in multilingual countries or distinctions between birthdays and anniversaries which I am not sure I understand
What’s the use of active sync ?
Does it support schools microsoft exchange ?
Black mirror was never a scifi series, rather a warning
Basically patreon for opensource? Or are there some key differences?
I agree with what @barsoap@lemm.ee said here. My argument is the same than what you’ve already heard: since it doesn’t take the original images, but rather learn from them, it acts as a human who also learns from many different images and it would make no sense to copyright all artists that a human is trained on. Also it’s true that a human artist also has his own experience that also influence the art while the neural network only has the art, however, the ai artist will provide this personal experience. So imo you shouldn’t consider image generations as plagiarism.
Though, I do agree that having people scraping your art to train a model on it is frustrating, even though it was already the case with people training on your art for their personal experience. In the case of a model it’s way more similar to the original art pieces. I haven’t made my mind on the ehtics of model training, but generating is not plagiarism in my opinion.
Anyway, my original stance was on generative ai to be used as art and not on it being plagiarism or not. Generative ai brings a say to make full pictures with minimal effort and some people generate hundreds of unoriginal similar images. Imo, since it is easy to have a final image, the artistic effort is elsewhere: the composition, originality of the subjects, mixing of new techniques: regional prompt, lora, controlnet, etc., mixing with other tools : photoshop, blender, animation, etc. You definitely can make art with generative ai, and it takes more time that it looks like. (Look up a video on comfyui, sdnext or invokeai to see example of workflows)
Both neural networks and the current state of ai art
Generative ai is not only prompting, which shows you don’t know. Who are you to decide what is creativity and innovation? Are you Mr Art?
Anyway, it is not ingesting images and photobashing them into a final picture, that’s not how it works. It has no memory of training data images, instead it learned to generate images by trying and when similar to a training data image going more in that direction. So it has the ability to create in the same style, but the original images it doesn’t have them
Yes youtube inner api is a public server, even with a domain name, and there’s nothing blocking it, no authentication. Some people say it’s against youtube api ToS but they shouldonly apply to their official api. Now in court you are never sure whay they’ll do