i think her takes make a little more sense if you think of the infinite noise machine as the art object itself rather than any particular output of it. i obviously can't read her mind but if you think of a music-generating model as an interactive music toy rather than "a replacement for a musician", then her position makes way more sense. why wouldn't you want more people doing Poet Laureate Infinity? i think for her the crime isn't scraping, but scraping in service of overmarketed smoothed-over slop generators instead of actually interesting art
from what i see, white people simply clamor for a context in which they're "allowed" to finally call someone the n-word, and are willing to accept substitute targets for their racism
add in a protective cloak of "it's ironic and a joke and YOU'RE the real racist for pointing this out" and you get a whole lot of people who are extremely okay slinging around barely modified racial slurs
and so i pass on the burden, like a virus, to all those who seek truth but must instead whip out their phone to scan a QR code and then get welcome-pinged 18 times in #general
i needed this giggle, gods bless our dubbers
your third sentence here is a non-sequitur -- do you mean to say disposable razors better work on longer hair that safety razors?
i can admit it's possible i'm being overly cynical here and it is just sloppy journalism on Raffaele Huang/his editor/the WSJ's part. but i still think that it's a little suspect on the grounds that we have no idea how many times they had to restart training due to the model borking, other experiments and hidden costs, even before things like the necessary capex (which goes unmentioned in the original paper -- though they note using a 2048-GPU cluster of H800's that would put them down around $40m). i'm thinking in the mode of "the whitepaper exists to serve the company's bottom line"
btw announcing my new V7 model that i trained for the $0.26 i found on the street just to watch the stock markets burn
bash.org died!? damn...
you definitely did in fact say that the idea that "copyright is about trading art for money" is bollocks. that is in fact a thing you said, straightforwardly
compare and contrast with "real artists do it for love, not money", which is a thing nobody in this entire thread said
and wouldn't you know it, a complete devolution into full-tilt """debate""" shadowboxing is my cue to turn off notifications. best of luck in the ring, i hear the spectre of communism has a nasty left hook