They’re trying to make some type of argument that a private studio should have exclusive rights to a specific style of art and that by openai allowing users to generate art in that style, we are slipping into anti-democratic authoritarianism.

My opinion is that you can’t own “styles” of art and that there’s nothing wrong here. Legally speaking I can copy any art style I want.

i see your point too, but i also think you’re mistaken.

engaging is any time of interaction whatsoever. i could go to a ragebait and go into the comments and calmly and politely explain xyz. But

a) in social media sites where algorithms are used the post I’m commenting on will be more likely to show up on other people’s screens. because social media sites want engagement- doesn’t have to be positive and

b) even in social media sites where there is no algorithm (like the one we’re speaking on) people are more likely to click on a comment section the larger the number of comments are. no point in clicking on the comment section if there’s 0 or 1 comments. every comment is an indirect increase to the visibility and probability of engagement with future users

while I do agree with you that there are different levels of engagement- either way you are engaging.

it probably does indirectly. users are probably more likely to go into the comment section if they see a larger number of comments. no reason to go there if it’s empty

engaging with something is perpetuating it. that’s how rage-bait works. the more people comment the more it spreads. content doesn’t have to be good, it just needs people to engage with it

look at the chaos that Y2K was. one doesn’t simply adopt a new calendar.

it’s too ingrained. it’s like ripping out the foundations of a house to build a new one. it would have to be one hell of a calendar