Probably would have helped more to lower the bridge even more 🤣
And we'll never hear of that one again.
The problem is that using those tools no matter how energy efficient will add to the total amount of energy humans use, because even if an AI generates an image faster than a human could, the human still needs 100W constantly.
This doesn't mean, that we shouldn't make it more efficient but let's be honest, more energy efficient AI just means that we would use even more AI everywhere.
I had the exact same idea, so the detective is probably looking there as well.
Who cares. Just say it's inside the home and enjoy your pay day 🤣
There is a leading space in the string itself, so OP is either a top tier troll or put in no effort at at and either way deserves the hate 😄
red deitsch oida
Thank you for taking the time to read it and your feedback.
Your replies here come off as pretty condescending.
That was definitely never my intention but a lot of people here said something similar. I should probably work on my English (I'm not a native speaker) to phrase things more carefully.
You shouldn't just say "did you read the article" and then "it's in this section of the article"
It never crossed my mind this could be interpreted in a negative way. I tried to gauge if someone read it and still disagreed or if someone didn't read it and disagrees, because those situations are two different things, at least for me. The hint with the sections was also meant as a pointer because I know that most people won't read the entire thing but maybe have 5min on their hand to read the relevant section.
Also in German. Word autocorrects that for example.
Hey Sam Harris is that you?
wischi
joined 2 years ago
I don't think that's how it works. If it exactly looks like something protected by laws like copyright or whatever your country uses, I highly doubt that any court would say that it's fine just because it was created by AI.