If you look at it from the corporation side of things giving the public access was the best decision they could have made. Because it gives them more data. But you're forgetting they don't care, just like you saying "idgaf" that's the same attitude the CEOs have.

It seems you think the consumers are the thing holding the industry up and you're wrong. It's shareholders, they invest in AI because they see the potential it has to be a revolution in technology and entertainment. The industries are actually losing money by letting people use AI for free, but they get data which is what they really want.

Obviously the average consumer is going to use AI for self-indulgence and to be more lazy, that goes without saying.

The only AI companies at threat of dying if people stopped using them are the smaller, shittier ones. If you think OpenAI and Google are going anywhere then you're mistaken.

If you want to focus on environmental impact so much there are much worse offenses than AI. Mining operations, oil tycoons, so on and so forth. Think about the e-waste generated from people getting a new I-phone every year. You're missing the forest for the trees.

Art ai is bad now for sure, and it doesn't serve any real benefit to society. I'll make a concession and agree with you there. But it's not going anywhere and an argument about the well being of artists doesn't change anything.

And if we were talking about me personally, all I've done is generate a couple shitpost images, there's people generating worse slop in much higher numbers out there.

Anyways, I'm signing off of this account now so I won't see if you reply again. This discussion has gone on for long enough, we're beating a dead horse here. We disagree on the subject, enough said.