You're projecting human faults to AI. Pretending to be an artist when you're just a prompter is a human fault. And there are plenty other applications which burn more electricity than a few AI prompts per day burn. "Stealing" artists' works doesn't matter because intellectual property is a meaningless concept.

You know you can use AI yourself too right? There's no need to be anti-AI when you can be anti-OpenAI/Anthropic/Google/etc.

And 'AI' has existed since the 1950s.

I mean of course he does. Imagine the cut he'd get from every single business which, not to mention, would soon become so dependent on him that he'd de facto own them. He'd have so much control it would be unreal.

Plain inference is profitable actually, that's why there are a hundred inference providers on OpenRouter who compete by undercutting each other. The labs however aren't profitable because training the models is a huge drain.

I know you might be joking and it's funny, but I don't think we should make AI nudes of anyone even if they're attractive.

They presented five generative AI chatbots—Gemini (2.0, Google; version available December 2024), DeepSeek (V3, High-Flyer; version available December 2024), Meta AI (Llama 3.3, Meta; version available December 2024), ChatGPT (3.5, OpenAI; version available November 2022) and Grok (2, xAI; version available August 2024)—with a series of closed- and open-ended prompts across five misinformation-prone categories.

Couldn't the researchers at least bother to use the latest models?