philosoraptor
No bio...
User ID: 285
philosoraptor
3d ago
I can only assume people are wildly misunderstanding what actually happened, though it seems to me the OP explains it quite clearly. There seems to be a lot of projecting of people's vaguely similar hobby horses going on.
Which is it? Either it's an image of her, or it's an AI generated image.
Disingenuous, unless you think the concept of, say, drawing a picture of Taylor Swift is incoherent. You can generally tell whether a picture is of Taylor Swift, and among people who know her the same is presumably true of this girl.
I don't see how having an AI do it instead of a human changes anything morally relevant; at the very least you need to make the case that it does. You seem to just assume it as a default, but I see no reason for doing this.
philosoraptor
9d ago
Clearly it's possible to charge for both. Lesser included offences absolutely are a thing. You just can't convict for both, as I understand it (and I see a couple other posters who seem to have relevant backgrounds are agreeing with this interpretation).
philosoraptor
27d ago
I provide it a ChatGPT report on sources and current events to ensure the references are clear.
This is the part I like the least for the tiny bit that's worth. ChatGPT hallucinates sources fairly regularly. And setting that aside, you shouldn't write (or let an AI write on your behalf) as though you could safely assume everyone is familiar with the sources, especially when you yourself wouldn't have been if not for the AI.
To what?
More options
Context Copy link