Is this true?
AI can allow non artist to output art that's somewhere between terrible and mediocre.
AI can allow a great artist to dramatically increase their output and therefore revenue.
AI can't really help mediocre artists much.
Luddites going to luddite basically. This exact same fear occurs everytime there's a dramatic technology leap. Luddites like yourself will eventually quiet themselves.
Only art where you gather natural pigments with human hands, mix them yourself on a surface you made yourself out of fibers you gathered yourself shall be acceptable. Everything else isn't actual art and is costing millions their jobs.
You know what's funny? Professional artists probably use AI more than anyone. If not, they're dumb. Why wouldn't you use a tool that can 10x your output?
I don't understand. Water is mentioned as a valid extinguishing means in the paper you linked, what's your argument?
Great question. Gmail is still OK, but if love to degoogle more.
He absolutely was
You take one nap in a ditch and they start declaring you this and that.
Not surprised. Like chromecast audio, chromecast couldn't really serve an adequate amount of ads. Basically it's only value was it forced you to use stock youtube app to stream preventing any adblocking, but if you cast your screen, then it can't stop adblocks, so it makes sense to discontinue this product. There's some open source projects out there that might be worth looking into, NymphCast is one I saw, uses a rasberry pi.
Don't worry. They won't play their cards right.
Hope they open source the tech or pirates get a hold of it.
Stop agreeing to work for greedy corps and then getting upset when customers pay the advertised price
Smoke is even worse for electrical equipment than water. Good luck recovering.