Per the software website (which the article links to), I don’t see any mention of generative AI. Their “ai image intelligence” only makes mention of tagging images for SEO.
www.pixometry.com/en/…/ai-image-intelligence/
This feels more like consolidating positions in an art department post-Photoshop because you don’t need photo editors to dodge and burn physical negatives in a darkroom any more.
slurpinderpin@lemmy.world
on 14 Jun 16:55
nextcollapse
Duh. As these models get better they’ll become more widely used by enterprises to save costs. That’s why these tech companies spent so much developing them… to sell them. The solution isn’t banning AI btw, it’s providing UBI to those most affected
QuantumSoul@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 14 Jun 17:11
nextcollapse
What’s UBI ?
RozhkiNozhki@lemmy.world
on 14 Jun 17:15
nextcollapse
Universal basic income
Lanusensei87@lemmy.world
on 14 Jun 17:15
nextcollapse
Universal Basic Income
nieceandtows@programming.dev
on 14 Jun 17:58
nextcollapse
Fredselfish@lemmy.world
on 14 Jun 18:07
nextcollapse
They not going sell them, but lease them.
HeadfullofSoup@kbin.earth
on 14 Jun 18:36
nextcollapse
Making everyone using them on a subscription model then when AI replace nearly everyone so company are stuck with AI jack the price as high as possible for ever and ever and ever
slurpinderpin@lemmy.world
on 14 Jun 18:48
collapse
Tomato tomato. They use them for sales and revenue
phoneymouse@lemmy.world
on 14 Jun 17:20
nextcollapse
The same NY Times suing Open AI for copyright infringement. Rules for thee, but not for me.
If the NY Times’ case has any merit, then the art generated by AI is also based on copyright infringing models.
slurpinderpin@lemmy.world
on 14 Jun 19:22
nextcollapse
Damn, good point, forgot about their lawsuit
General_Effort@lemmy.world
on 14 Jun 20:04
collapse
The winners of a system don’t have an incentive to undermine the rules. Quite the opposite. The NYT wants these rules because it would benefit from them. There are at least 2 image generators that adhere to capitalist ethics. I don’t know what Claro uses, but I see no indication that they are being uppity.
threaded - newest
They are just practicing using AI to help out with the workload
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/9885b77e-d5b4-4545-9b41-8501d9c7f6c7.gif">
Per the software website (which the article links to), I don’t see any mention of generative AI. Their “ai image intelligence” only makes mention of tagging images for SEO. www.pixometry.com/en/…/ai-image-intelligence/
Yeah, it’s basically a smart photo filter for color-correction, object cut-outs, masking, etc:
www.pixometry.com/en/…/elpical-claro-pixometry/
This feels more like consolidating positions in an art department post-Photoshop because you don’t need photo editors to dodge and burn physical negatives in a darkroom any more.
Duh. As these models get better they’ll become more widely used by enterprises to save costs. That’s why these tech companies spent so much developing them… to sell them. The solution isn’t banning AI btw, it’s providing UBI to those most affected
What’s UBI ?
Universal basic income
Universal Basic Income
Universal basic income
Urinal … Infection
… Butthole … ?
thats why you shouldnt get your butthole peed on
They not going sell them, but lease them.
Making everyone using them on a subscription model then when AI replace nearly everyone so company are stuck with AI jack the price as high as possible for ever and ever and ever
Tomato tomato. They use them for sales and revenue
If you're providing it to only some people, it's not very universal now is it
Providing income universally to those most affected. It’ll never happen anyways though let’s be real. Look at our current politics.
Unemployment already exists?
The same NY Times suing Open AI for copyright infringement. Rules for thee, but not for me.
If the NY Times’ case has any merit, then the art generated by AI is also based on copyright infringing models.
Damn, good point, forgot about their lawsuit
The winners of a system don’t have an incentive to undermine the rules. Quite the opposite. The NYT wants these rules because it would benefit from them. There are at least 2 image generators that adhere to capitalist ethics. I don’t know what Claro uses, but I see no indication that they are being uppity.
Good