wildginger

Im a professional ecologist. I have to listen to one of my colleagues rant about this topic on a nearly weekly basis, because its the focus of her grant work.

There are multiple groups of actual researchers in nearly every institute of biological study on the planet dedicated to spreading local awareness about wild cats.

There are multiple websites entirely dedicated to trying to inform people that the small apex predator from a far off desert doesnt actually belong wandering the wilds of your neighborhood.

There are a few actual native species of wild felines currently threatened due to feral domestic cats, that are having trouble becoming stable again because of folk like you.

The kind of person who doesnt really grok that owned cats are where feral cats come from, because your cat is fucking left and right in the bushes.

The kind of person who thinks their cat can win a fight with a car, or coyote, or wolf, or fox, or badger, or weasel, or any other predator in the wild that youre gleefully feeding it to.

The kind of person who is to blame for multiple feline diseases spreading and festering in local populations because you let your cat go pick them up from the source and spread them about willy nilly.

The kind of person who failed to pay attention in grade school science.

But please. Go on, tell me how the majority of science is a pop article about cat litter, flunkie.

I think they are saying that stalin was in an accident as a kid, and some other entity cited this incident so incorrectly as to claim that his father died in a pub fight. Which became the commonly understood "fact."

I think.

Thats exactly how cats work.

The comic is funny and cute, but dont get it twisted. The science is pretty firm on the destructive effects of invasive domestic cats.

Did photoshop create a portion of my image? Did adobe add a "generate the picture I asked for, for me, without my input beyond a typed prompt" as a feature?

Because if they did, 100% yeah, theyre liable.

.............. Do you think youre a robot?

And if you tried to sell that, you would be breaking the law.

Which is what these AI models are doing

"I didnt kill him, officer, my murder robot did. Oh, sure, I built it and programmed it to stab jenkins to death for an hour. Oh, yes, I charged it, set it up in his house, and made sure all the programming was set. Ah, but your honor, I didnt press the on switch! Jenkins did, after I put a note on it that said 'not an illegal murderbot' next to the power button. So really, the murderbot killed him, and if you like maybe even jenkins did it! But me? No, sir, Im innocent!"

What point do you think youre making? The answer to this question supports their point.

Or you do? The point is that these machines are just regurgitating the copyrighted data they are fed, and not actually doing all that transformative work their creators claim in order to legally defend feeding them work they dont have the rights to.

Its recreating the images it was fed. Not completing the prompt in unique and distinct ways. Just taking a thing it ate and plopping it into your hands.

It doesnt matter that you asked it to do that, because the whole point was that it "isnt supposed to" do that in order for them to have the legal protection of feeding it artwork they didnt pay the rights to.

Windows dont roll down either, phones dont ring, and that weird square for my save icon means nothing to me.

Linguistic artifacts are weird

Because the problem with ev is that the battery drains charge faster in the cold, charges slower in the cold, and struggles to charge at all if its too cold.

So if you have juice, starting is fine. But the cold problems for ev is that the cold is functionally drinking your gas for you, not that the engine cant turn over.