free_bip

That doesn't matter because companies who use AI art in their projects either proudly proclaim they're using it, or actively hide it and get found out by someone and face significant backlash for hiding it. Labeling laws in the EU also make it extremely difficult to do the latter if you want to have an audience outside NA.

Commercial art projects will not be 50% AI soon. Consumers at large hate all AI art even if it's only used in the conceptual stage and will actively avoid projects that use it.

If you think this is true then you simply lack the creativity to understand how bad domestic laws can get.

They have access to all the same open models that the rest of the world does, so just fine I would think.

I'm sure it's not the intended way to play but guessing randomly seems to have a net positive score, so getting a high score is as simple as spamming the buttons as fast as you can. I got 10k on mobile through this strategy.

The entire concept of IP-encumbered seeds is cruel and dangerous.

I understand if you don't like how the person phrased it, but the goal of the DM was obviously to get the store owner to replace the AI poster. Assuming that they would have gone on a crusade because they didn't pick a "preferred artist" is pure unsupported speculation on your part.

Basic economic theory states that only holds if the goods / services being provided are equivalent in the eyes of consumers. It seems self evident here that consumers do not consider them equivalent.

Unions also use the threat of striking as a leverage point against corporations. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, there seems to be a common fallacy in this thread of "threat = bad". Laws are threats too. You need a more convincing argument than this.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what extortion is. It's only extortion if the one extorting is the one receiving the benefit. Hiring a random artist on Fiverr would still make them happy (since the poster is not AI) but would not benefit them in any way.

Extra responsibilities = extra pay 100% of the time. Just because it doesn't happen in practice all the time doesn't make it right.

Indeed, artists provide a very valuable service. It's a shame the AI industry feels they're replaceable when they're obviously not.

By that definition all laws are threats. And indeed, the fallacy here seems to be assuming that threat = bad.

Recent estimates for the number of lives saved annually is actually around 114,000[0]. The number keeps going up because healthcare in the US just keeps getting worse and worse over time.

[0]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.22.26358689...

Right, the point is we're trying to avoid reverting back to such practices.

Do you have anything to back that up?

The company that makes the airplane is not normally the company that installs the interior anyways. The airline that buys the plane typically determines what the interior will look like (stuff like ratio of business to economy, overall # of seats, in flight entertainment, etc)

It being barebones from the factory is not a problem.

Now we can have John Apple instead of Tim Apple!

This is just blatantly false.

I've noticed that the main (socially acceptable) use for AI in entertainment seems to be laughing at how bad it is. When it fucks up something obvious that any human would know not to do. When it does something so insane and out of left field that it takes you by surprise and makes you laugh. This seems to fall under that category.

Tragic news: The worst person you know made a great point.

Most consumers are not an IT department, unfortunately.

We're trying to replace alarm clocks with AI now? Is nothing sacred?

There really needs to be criminal penalties for this kind of behavior. You can't just let autonomous agents hack people through your own negligence and then claim "oh sorry wasn't me" as a defense.

If what you want is the "Why", you're right it probably won't get it right. It'll just give you baseless speculation. But if what you want is the "What" or the "How", I think it can be useful.

By that logic we shouldn't lock up murderers either. After all, it won't help the person who's already dead.

Genuine question here, why would you ask Fable to explain the difference between tusks and teeth? That's a task that can probably be handled by Haiku.

Luckily for you, as far as I can tell you don't have any concrete reason to fear having your repos taken down. Or at least I haven't been given any.

If the reason is more emotional than rational ("this feels like it's going to change more"), that's okay. Not everything needs to be governed by rigid rules. The Codeberg community knows that well. If in a few years your 100+ repos are still all fine and dandy to their rule set I'm sure they'd be happy to have you.

That seems like a completely different concern than what you originally stated? You're not worried about future policies, you're worried about the policy that was just passed.

And for what it's worth, it seems like they only care if the project is directly crypto related (e.g if you had a repo directly implementing a Monero node, that would probably not be allowed). If it's just a repo that implements a generic Cryptography concept that happens to be used both in crypto and elsewhere, then I don't see what the problem would be.

Again, the rules are judgement based. That means you can interact with the community to get clarification, and make your case that your project is worth keeping.

You are effectively saying you do not trust the judgement of the community to accept you long term.

Why is that? Is it because you believe there would be a new policy that would exclude your workflow? What would such a policy be? Do you really, reasonably believe it would be implemented "tomorrow"? Do you think adapting to such a policy would be unreasonable?

Or is it because you don't trust the judgement of the people enforcing these new rules?

If not one of the two, what is the reason?

The point I'm trying to make here is that this just sounds like a slippery slope argument. If you don't have a concrete reason to believe you won't be welcome "tomorrow" then my mind has not been changed.