You could say it was one of the websites of all time.

Ask six people to identify the ‘soul’ in a piece of art and you’ll get seven different answers. It’s an entirely subjective concept.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as the saying goes. Maybe we should stop gatekeeping what art people enjoy and stop brigading them when they dare to like something ‘real artists’ decide they shouldn’t.

Link to the appeal here: https://www.kentwildlifetrust.org.uk/hoathly-farm-appeal

Removed by mod

Can they not install a under-road toad tunnel to allow them to cross safely? Seems a more efficient way of doing things.

Sorry, you know the rules: pics or it didn’t happen.

Removed by mod

Amazing! I bet it looks lovely!

Yeah, that was my initial concern to, so that’s good to see!

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

I use it to create music: https://youtube.com/@codedtone

I also use it to generate the thumbnails and album art for said music.

In addition, I use ChatGPT to brainstorm ideas for various campaigns I’m currently DMing including ideas for encounters, characters, locations etc.

Which seems like a silly method of comparing emissions, given that the human doesn’t exist for the purpose of creating images. The carbon footprint of the human is still present whether or not they are generating art.

Whether it’s creating art with AI or via another means the human must be involved or else the art doesn’t get created. They are a intrinsic part of the process and so their footprint must be included.

For an AI, the emissions are an addition to global carbon footprint

For Digital art (I.e Photoshop etc) the computer use is in addition to global carbon footprint. In Photography the construction of a camera is in addition to global carbon footprint. The list goes on. Either we either include the carbon footprint of all the tool(s) involved in the creation of the piece or we don’t include any.

For the final point, a random social media post isn’t a profit seeing endeavor, which is why it isn’t expected to pay for any images it uses. The normal accepted practice is to just give credit to the source. The same is not true for news articles, which does care about there being a watermark and is expected to pay for image use. Unless of course people start accepting the normal use of ai images in which case disrupts a whole industry to provide worse art.

Whether it’s ‘accepted practice’ or not is irrelevant. Using a watermarked image for anything without permission or license is illegal and fails to reimburse the artist that created it, the very thing you accuse AI of doing.

Re. that 2023 MIT article

Their work, which is yet to be peer reviewed,

Here’s a peer reviewed article from 2024 that presents an interesting counterpoint:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x

Here is another peer reviewed paper from 2024 that argues that cautious optimism should be used when calculating the environmental and societal impact of LLMs specically:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76682-6

TLDR it seems to be more complicated than simply AI = Bad for the environment

Also I’d point out that your points 2 and 5 are kind of hypocritical. You accuse AI of ‘stealing’ jobs but then suggest someone could use a watermarked stock image without permission or a license, which is arguably a form of theft in and of itself, and could directly impact another artists job.

What do you miss most about the Ukraine? What would you miss most about Korea if you left?

Real leather, freshly cut wood, most fragrant flowers (especially Lillies, Jasmine, Sweet Peas and Roses), petrichor, garlic, freshly cut grass

Honestly this seems like a reasonable usage for an AI.

I mean it’d be great to see some of these ‘public facts’ you mention. I’m not necessarily questioning the veracity of your claims, but this does ironically somewhat come across as a AI written fever-dream without some supporting evidence.

The Great Fen Vision began in 2000 as the Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire came together with other bodies to create a 14-square mile (36 sq km) wetland landscape.

Wow!