I remember my FIL asking each one if they were trying to supplement a living or if they were purely a for-profit capitalist venture taking advantage of an opportunity at an anti-capitalist protest.
Out of curiosity, how would he draw that line? When does it stop counting as a living and start being a purely for-profit venture?
Quoting the linked article:
The contract the Guild secured in September set a historic precedent: It is up to the writers whether and how they use generative AI as a tool to assist and complement—not replace—them. Ultimately, if generative AI is used, the contract stipulates that writers get full credit and compensation.
So, yeah. It’s more about ensuring that a human person in the writers’ guild gets credited as a writer, even if they or someone else uses an ai as a tool in the process.
That’s allowed, no?
Unless I’m mistaken, this was more about writers not wanting the studio to be able to say “we had an ai generated a script. We’ll pay you a day to do a brief editing pass.”
They have a high alcohol diet?
I’m asking how people intend to use that number.
Um, I think you mean octopodes.
Fun fact, there’s a Wikipedia article that comes up for “plurals of words ending in -us” with a section jus for octopus.
…AI generated jeans spammers? What did I miss?
The Vulcan science directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.
When I was like 8, I allegedly … Illegally acquired… A beanie baby. I … may have just carried it out of a mall while Christmas shopping.
This is all hypothetical, of course. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact that a tiny stuffed ferret was as close as I was going to get to owning a ferret. That would be silly.
Gigabit fiber is a thing, and not at all uncommon in a lot of places.
I was under the impression that limbs “falling asleep” was more of a nerve thing and not a circulation thing. Is that not true?
I’m with you. I wouldn’t think it was happening until it already happened.
Disagreeing is fine, but fallacious arguments aren’t. I feel it’s important to be able to understand why you believe what you do, or at least not to expect others to agree with you if you can’t. Fallacious arguments are not good reasons to believe something, and outright false ones are even worse.
Holding an opinion I disagree with is fine, it’s when you tell me my opinion is wrong and offer only bad reasoning to convince me that it’s a problem.
It’s bad because of the, like, stalking/prodding people until they engage part of it. Just like JAQing, it starts with a pretense of doing no wrong. This means sometimes it’s possible to accuse someone of it when they’re acting in good faith because what they said closely resembles others who have acted in bad faith.
I think in my mind trolling has to be perpetrated in bad faith, i.e. your stated intentions and actual intentions are at least different and quite possibly contrary. Doesn’t sound like you were trolling.
Some people just want to watch the world burn.
Oh, or “just asking questions” and sealioning. I’d pretty much universally consider those to be trolling.
I don’t know. I was thinking about, like, bad takes argued for in bad faith, or at least bad form. Constant straw-manning and ad hominems to support an argument like “women are inferior to men” or some other bs
As a religious trans person, it’s deeply insulting how many anti-trans religious authorities say things like “don’t let the world tell you who you are, trust in the voice of God in your own heart” or something, and then go all surprised Pikachu when I’m still trans afterwards.
L stands for leap year, so that tracks.