Zelaf

I had my internship there this year. The issues with my lenovo laptop started in 2021 after I bought it, managed to get my money back after 2 years late last year and decided to go full time on the Steam Deck as my personal computer alongside a portable monitor.

The HP laptops all felt pretty solid when I set them up, the company gave me a spare Lenovo laptop that was just laying around that worked okay, forgot which model but I think it was probably around their 1200 euro range probably. But the HPs didn't have much in terms of keyboard flex and the trackpad felt really nice, however I was only having it for a couple of hours before they were being repackaged to get to the customer so no real time to judge anything.

I ralso recognised having brand loyalty towards prefab computers were pointless pretty early on. Everything from the lack of upgraidability to the lack of easy access to repairs and sending enormous parts for minor things just wasn't cutting it for me. I'm glad with my Steam Deck now actually, with my monitor and wireless keyboard and mouse I can manage my own IT stuff at home from anywhere and do my dev stuff pretty comfortably. Knowing I can also go to ifixit to buy spare parts whenever I want is a nice bonus!

As for HP being shit in every other area, yea, I'm always gonna keep in mind to not buy their printers and stay away from them as much as possible.

What did add up on Lenovo's side was their customer support in my country. They were very kind and helpful regarding my issue but I couldn't sit around and wait for it to be fixed and them trying 100 different things.

But thank you for telling me your experience, I'll make sure to keep it in mind when getting my job and hopefully have the opportunity to be able to give someone something that won't break!

Would love to hear your thoughts on HP. I had an internship at a IT company doing general setup and maintenance for businesses IT and since each consultant managed their own customer they often stuck with their own brands.

Having setup some of these I often felt like Lenovo was hot garbage, I've had a lenovo laptop with terrible manufacturing issues and the company I was at too and some of my friends. I would feel lucky if I get a Lenovo laptop without errors. Dell I haven't heard anything bad of in general, one employee usually preferred buying them and then one other preffered HP. There was one or two people there who ordered Lenovo simply because they were so much cheaper for the specs but build quality and other components are just so garbage.

Of course, I'm not speaking about their budget 300 euro to 700 euro laptops now. The ones I was able to handle and setup were all 1300 to 3500 euros.

12 people?? Damn, I barely know one!

Did you drift with the packages?

This is true.

Double Personality Disorder?

@admin MOD ABUSE!!!!!

That's a pizza!

Indeed, if the AI was trained based on theft it's neither right on their part or ethical on mine.

I did some searching but sadly don't have time to look into it more but there were some concerning articles that would suggest they have either used shady practices to get their training data or users having to manually check an opt out box in the app settings.

I can't make an opinion on it right now before looking into it more but my core argument about using AI itself in this manner, even if that data was your own on your own trained AI using allowed resources, I still believe somewhat holds.

As a photographer I'm a bit torn on this one.

I believe AI art should definitely be labeled to minimize people being mislead about the source of the art. But at the same time the OP on the Adobe forums post did say they used it as any other tool for touching up and fixing inconsistencies.

If I were to for example arrange a photoshoot with a model and they happened to have a zit that day on their forehead of course I'm gonna edit that out. Or if I happened to have an assistant with me that got in the shot but I don't want to crop in making the background and feel of the photo tighter I would gladly remove that too. Sure Adobe already has the patch, clone and even magic eraser tool (Which also uses AI, that might or might not mark photos) to do these fix-ups but if I can use AI, that I hope is trained on data they're actually allowed to train on, I think I would prefer that because if I'm gonna spend 10 to 30 minutes fixing blemishes, zits and what not I'd much prefer to use the AI tools to get my job done quicker.

If the tools were however used to rigorously change, modify and edit the scene and subject then for sure, it might be best to add that.

Wouldn't it be better to not discourage the use of editing tools when those tools are used in a way that just makes one's job quicker? If I were to use Lightrooms subject quick selection, should it be slapped on then? Or if I were to use an editing preset created with AI that automatically adjusts the basic settings of an image and further my editing from that, should the label be created then? Or if I have a flat white background with some tapestry pattern and don't want to spend hours getting the alignment of the pattern just right as I try to fix a minor aspect ratio issue or want to get just a bit more breathing room on the subject and I use the mentioned AI tool in the OP.

Things OP mentioned in his post and the scenarios I mentioned are all things you can do without AI anyways it just takes a lot longer sometimes, there's no cheating in using the right tool for the right job IMO. I don't think it's too far off from someone who makes sculptures in clay uses an ice scream scoop with ridges to create texture or a Dremel to touch up and fix corners. Or a painter using different tools and brushes and scrapers to finish their painting.

Perhaps a better idea would be if we want to make the labels "fair" there should also be a label that the photo has been manipulated by a program in general or maybe add a percentage indicator to see how much of it has been edited specifically with AI. Slapping an "AI" label on someone because they decided to get equal results by using another tool to do normal touch-ups to a photo could potentially be damaging to ones career and credibility when it doesn't say how much of it was AI or in what reach, because now there's the chance someone might be looking for their next wedding photographer and be discouraged because of the bad rep regarding AI.

Even finns photographers touch up their photos, either during development by adjusting how long they sit in one or the chemical processes or by using different methods of shaking/mixing processes and techniques.

If they enlarge their negatives on photo paper they often have tools to add lightness and darkness to different areas of the paper to help with exposure, contrast and subject highlighting. AKA. Dodging and burning which is also available in most photo editing software today.

There are loads of things to do to improve developed photos and been something that has always been something that photographers/developers do. People who still go with the "Don't edit photos" BS are usually not very well informed about photo history and techniques of their photography inspirations.

Sweden's on their way to doing that. They're looking into making encrypted chats illegal...