• Pennomi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    146
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    4 days ago

    OpenAI picked Studio Ghibli because Miyazaki hates their approach.

    I highly doubt it. They picked it because the Ghibli style is very popular among users. There’s also no reason to believe that it violates “democratic values”. Since it’s popular, the general population is voting that they LIKE it, not that they oppose it.

    Downvote me all you like, but this is trying to put a lot of malice where the simpler explanation is just “money”.

    • 474D@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Yeah it’s not like this is the only way to generate the style, it’s relatively simple to even do it locally. It’s just popular

    • Balder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yeah the text makes many freestyle assumptions, although the overall sentiment is correct that these big companies and especially egocentric billionaires do stuff to trigger others simply for power display. I believe the text linked about it being a distraction for the new round of funding is the real reason.

    • Bogasse@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      3 days ago

      no reason to believe it violates “democratic values”

      In my country the law is one of the pillars of democracy, but you do you 👍

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        The law very, VERY often violates the democratic choices of the people in the United States. That’s what you get when you do FPTP voting schemes.

      • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        You’re implying that this is against the law without ever bothering to prove the implication.