I’ve stared at a few of these thus far, and I’m 99.9999% sure this is AI-generated.
It’s more obvious on some graphics than others, but there’s a lot of incoherence, the shadows make no sense and the window styling looks nothing like Windows.
This just screams of AI.
Cap, I think you’re a proudly ignorant luddite.
Go yell at clouds or something.
It’s not safe and all that stuff.
No, I’m dead serious about rule 7.
We follow the ASPCA’s stance on the issue.
Breed discrimination is prohibited, and a ban will ensue following multiple rule violations.
You broke rule 7 multiple times. The rules are clear. See you in 30 days.
The statistics are technically correct, it’s not all pit bulls, but pit bulls often show up in statistics due to various human factors and breed misreporting.
They appear statistically dangerous, but individual pit-like dogs are not inherently dangerous, hence why rule 7 is important.
I said provide your sources, don’t put words in my mouth.
Not getting into this discussion, but next time, please provide your sources in the same comment where you make the claim.
EDIT: I’ve updated the rules, this comment is void and null.
Please cite your sources upon request, ideally in the reply where the claim is made but not necessarily. Citing your sources when making a claim is, however, recommended to avoid a Rule 8 violation, but will not be enforced.
We should also be specific in what we oppose.
“Artificial Intelligence” is probably one of the broadest terms in common use today.
IMO, this is what we should oppose:
I might have missed some, but IMO, large language models and voice generation can be done ethically and are ok in very narrow contexts. Both of these are tools and should never be used as a final product.