If that is in fact how the system in question works.

We know that’s how the system works by the fact…

We know how THIS system works - but…

They cast doubt, I point out proof, they deflect to other systems they might be right about. Sounds like they moved the goalposts to me. I don’t need to know which system it is to know it does what we can see it do.

Why would they request to retexture the stone tiles at the top to have stronger speckles? That’s not just “we turned up the contrast”, cause the rest of the image has lower contrast.

We aren’t talking about other systems. Don’t move the goalposts.

We know that’s how the system works by the fact that every single person in the image looks different.

It is worth remembering that AI replaces the ENTIRE image, even if you ask it to change only one thing. That’s why every single person in the image looks different.

A kid napping, you mean

“Dog breeds? I sure hope it does” -Kash, on all fours

Oh, no, they both have very different ideas of what to do to a dog.

They like dogs because the oldest ones are only 15.

Yeah, it’s not a Perfect explanation, but I couldn’t make a pun out of the full explanation.

Short version, Macklemore wanted to support Palestine, and Ed said “Don’t”, and now nobody wants to Play for him.

I mean, you’re on the right track, but it’s a little stop and GO at the moment. Maybe you need more dad joke train-ing.

It’s possible your coworkers are the ones dealing with those issues, and you just never notice.

First, you forgot Mamdani. Second, I didn’t say politician, so con man isn’t tautology. Third, I think the flow works best with four options and keeping pedophile for last.

I have no words to describe this.

They said “perfectly”, not “90%”. You’re trying to move the goalposts.

Sorry, but I think that’s a wrap on the conversation. She beet you. Sometimes, a joke goes flat and you’ve gotta roll with it.

The phrase “is this a joke” usually denotes something as farcical, only for this to be a literal application of that phrase, creating a meta-subversion and, thus, comedy.

I mean, I liked it, at least.

all of your claims have so many asterisks attached that they’re essentially pointless

No they don’t, but say whatever you need to ignore me. That’s definitely what someone arguing in good faith would do.

internet access has been shown to have all the same negative effects

Citation needed.

it’s a useful technology

Quite the opposite, actually. It causes enormous problems and has no benefits that aren’t better served by existing technologies that lack those problems.

Nobody who uses AI treats it like a tool, they treat it like an employee they can claim credit for. And most tools aren’t actively detrimental to the user to the point of proven intelligence drops, lawsuits and environmental destruction. Also, the enemy charges you money to use it.

The only person who benefits from AI is the person selling it. So why are you trying to defend it?