Or you could just spend mere seconds to reverse image search it and find a higher resolution copy that also doesn't have the watermark. It might have even been faster than writing this comment.
I also like to make fun of the low quality by making it worse. Some people have no ability to even see the low quality, and I find that sad. It's like living your whole life not knowing you need to wear glasses.
When I post a better quality image I explain that in the comment. Like "More pixels" or something.
When it comes to dbzer0 users, unless you make it blatantly clear that you're a militant anti-capitalist "anarchist" then they will jump to some ridiculous conclusion that you are somehow a "capitalist bootlicker."
There's no need to worry about what specific phrasing to appease them. They seem to actively look for ways to interpret you in a way that makes you an enemy somehow.
Always remember, you better filesystem check yourself before you filesystem wreck yourself.
Ignore them. I've had more issues with dbzer0 users than from any other instance. They are clearly attacking you then when you try to defend yourself they try to use that against you.
Really, this all started because you just were trying to think of the person behind the badge, while acknowledging that cops are still bastards. But, because you didn't use the right phrasing they are vilifying you. It's crazy that you're literally being attacked because you're trying to empathize with another human, as if that's a bad thing.
Of course. It's a new tool and too many people think everything is a nail to its hammer. Any tool used improperly will hinder productivity. Hell, any tool that has any amount of learning curve will hinder productivity to some extent.
So, the question that people should be seeking an answer for is "what are the actual nails for this particular hammer?"
Lazy and wrong. You are intentionally misinterpreting what I said and conveniently disregarding other things I said that contradict your incorrect use. You're simply trying to disingenuously undermine my points rather than have a good faith discussion.
Posting only a link to a wikipedia page is obnoxious. You're not even bothering to explain how you think it's relevant. In this case that would be particularly important since the "AI effect" you linked has nothing to do with what I said.
Are you too lazy to even explain, are incapable of explaining, or are you just regurgitating whatever you can find in an attempt to overwhelm with low-effort "arguments"? (This is rhetorical. Please just go away, since you're clearly only here with bad faith.)
Yeah yeah. The definition of AI has now fundamentally changed. Notice that I never said an LLM is not a form or subset of AI at all. The term "AI" has a much broader scope than an LLM and because of that people think it can do more than it is capable. An LLM cannot reason—it just predicts the next most likely word to follow with some additional weights as a loose guideline.
I would only agree that people who are ignorant or willfully ignorant will not care, but that does not give any strength to their argument. It just acknowledges mass ignorance.
Or you could just spend mere seconds to reverse image search it and find a higher resolution copy that also doesn't have the watermark. It might have even been faster than writing this comment.