Making users feel better is one of the usefulnesses of this technology. Factuality and scientific rigor are not something text generators are capable of due to the nature of the technology itself.
I would instead argue that being overly agreeable and not challenging the user may conflict with making the user feel better long-term.
It’s not that paying for things is bad. The problem is that good software is vital to digital artists’ income, and both purchasing and learning that software is a substantial investment. When a company sells or otherwise enshittifies their software, the artist is then put in a very hard place. Open-source software is the only way to combat that unfortunately likely scenario. By all means, please pay for that software if you can afford to. Doing so subsidizes usage for less fortunate people who may be able to better their situation as a direct result of your generosity.
They aren’t though. They’re rectangular at the top and then have cylinders coming out the bottom. I think the heels of his shoes might be square on the bottom.
Making me realize Spongebob isn’t even square.
I think y’all who are upset over the use of “freeware” are out of touch with how language is used in non-expert settings. Like, I’m definitely more tech-savvy than most people and I still didn’t know about “FOSS” as a term until seeing it on Lemmy and looking it up. This just means “free software” to me and doesn’t imply anything negative.
It even says, “the premier free and open source image editing software for multiple platforms” right in the first paragraph, so what’s the issue? Do you think the headline will mislead someone into thinking that GIMP is proprietary?
It just seems like a lot of people don’t realize that, based on how they phrase their concerns. I wanted to put the idea out for consideration without calling out anyone specifically as I feel that’s needlessly hostile. I think the less direct approach allows people to decide for themselves whether I’m talking about them, without feeling they need to respond to an accusation.
I feel like everyone who’s against image/text generation on the grounds of artists’ financial wellbeing is actually against capitalism rather than AI.
“devs too focused on making a game pretty instead of fun” is talking about making the art photorealistic with fancy hair engines and such, when doing so doesn’t add meaningfully to the experience and only serves to needlessly complicate development and inflate the cost.
We can tell that making all these 3D models and animations is a problem for the devs because they’ve said so repeatedly. They’ve even said they can’t have every Pokemon in the same game as a result. Instead of the lovely pixel art of FRLG we have a mish-mash of dead-eyed, poorly-animated cartoons with PSP-quality “realistic” terrain that grate against each other. And for what? Why do 3D when you can only do 3D so poorly?
I would love to learn why this isn’t completely stupid, if anyone has a way of explaining. We’d be down entire genres of games if developers didn’t copy each other’s homework.
The only thing I use Reddit for is porn, and my feed isn’t empty, so either they’re doing this in stages or there’s some other criteria they’re using beyond just being NSFW.
Seems to be working just as well as regular voting.
Search engine is one of my main uses. Traditional search engines are worse than they used to be at a basic text search, and ChatGPT has the added bonus of being able to parse complex text and “figure out” what you mean when describing something that you don’t have a name for. You have to ask it for sources rather than just reading whatever it generates, and/or do traditional searches on the keywords it provides.