At my daughter's (high) school the kids have to manage social media accounts as part of the curriculum. They're an arts school that puts on plays, musical performances, etc.

It is fully expected that the kids post tasteful videos promoting their work (e.g. a pianist kid would have to post a video of them playing and they'll be taught how to make sure the lighting/audio is right). They also have the kids create all the school's social media videos (only certain teachers have the power to actually post them though).

They are taught what's bad and good about social media and they experience it. All the teachers know everyone's (non-secret, haha) accounts and they get graded on them! There's all sorts of resources for the kids and they're all so damned professional it's easy to forget they're just kids.

Things like bullying, how to manage comments/inappropriate posts, and how to deal with trolls/unhelpful negative feedback is covered and it's fucking fantastic.

Every school should have social media management and online etiquette classes.

What I wish they spent more time on is how to protect your privacy... But I understand the conflict there: If they teach the kids how to keep things secret, well, parents might not appreciate that 🤷

LEGO Representative: "What's the likelihood..."

This guy: "Never tell me the odds!"

Meh. Seems rather plane.

I'm pining for an answer to this question myself.

Totally unfair comparison. Reek was tortured and had his balls forcibly cut off to become what he was.

Rubio was like that from the start.

A president that doesn't believe in civil rights and due process deserves neither.

Once the non-loyal judges are imprisoned, everyone else who isn't white and Republican will also be on the chopping block.

THOSE SWINE!

Sorry, Catholics and Indians... It's better for America if the curse of JD Vance stays outside the country.

Surely, you have some enemies other than us, yes? Send him there.

Catholics: Please do feel free to send him straight to hell 👍

One point three two emm bee 😁

Looks funny with a green hose and a yellow nozzle but a lot of bidet tools are just a spray nozzle on a (usually white-ish) hose. The nozzle is more of the kitchen sink variety but it's really not that different.

The real problem with this setup is the hose and nozzle are under the seat! No reason for that... Just keep it off to the side.

TL;DR: This setup will work fine. Maybe use a light touch on that handle though 😉

The most ardent religious adherents insist that atheists have no morals. They have no idea what they're talking about. The truth is that they listen intently to an atheist with no morals every time to go to church.

What could possibly make him more popular?

With the ghost of solvents past.

Chaos is in your blood 🤷

From too many foods.

He gets to stay in the US, at least 🤷

To be fair, the "vandals" were just doing the Republicans a favor by taping the correct symbol to their door.

Straight up: It wasn't actually vandalism. Like handing out Russian flags at a conservative event:

https://www.vox.com/2017/2/24/14725950/russian-flag-cpac

If you hired someone to copy Ghibli's style, then fed that into an AI as training data, it would completely negate your entire argument.

It is not illegal for an artist to copy someone else's style. They can't copy another artist's work—that's a derivative—but copying their style is perfectly legal. You can't copyright a style.

All of that is irrelevant, however. The argument is that—somehow—training an AI with anything is somehow a violation of copyright. It is not. It is absolutely 100% not a violation of copyright to do that!

Copyright is all about distribution rights. Anyone can download whatever TF they want and they're not violating anyone's copyright. It's the entity that sent the person the copyright that violated the law. Therefore, Meta, OpenAI, et al can host enormous libraries of copyrighted data in their data centers and use that to train their AI. It's not illegal at all.

When some AI model produces a work that's so similar to an original work that anyone would recognize it, "yeah, that's from Spirited Away" then yes: They violated Ghibli's copyright.

If the model produces an image of some random person in the style of Studio Ghibli that is not violating anyone's copyright. It is not illegal nor is it immoral. No one is deprived of anything in such a transaction.

I think your understanding of generative AI is incorrect. It’s not just “logic and RNG”...

If it runs on a computer, it's literally "just logic and RNG". It's all transistors, memory, and an RNG.

The data used to train an AI model is copyrighted. It's impossible for something to exist without copyright (in the past 100 years). Even public domain works had copyright at some point.

if any of the training data is copyrighted, then attribution must be given, or at the very least permission to use this data must be given by the current copyright holder.

This is not correct. Every artist ever has been trained with copyrighted works, yet they don't have to recite every single picture they've seen or book they've ever read whenever they produce something.

To be fair, that entire industry, wines about everything.