I was wondering this is well. Took me a while to find this discussion: https://woem.men/notes/9ozhpn3l2n5v0b6c
He claims he only created an account to "investigate" if they were talking about him.
Another worrying thing I accidentally stumbled on a while back was he was in the streamer "Destiny" chat. Hmm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgF92Wi8J7o (said he used to listen to Jordan Peterson in 2015 too).
Yeah, IDK what to think about him now. I still like his consumer advocacy though, I guess.
I'd argue that even if gen-AI art is indistinguishable from human art, human art is better. E.g. when examining a painting you might be wondering what the artist was thinking of, what was going on in their life at the time, what they were trying to convey, what techniques they used and why. For AI art, the answer is simply it's statistically similar to art the model has been trained on.
But, yeah, stuff like game textures usually aren't that deep (and I don't think they're typically crafted by hand by artists passionate about the texture).
Ha! No, depending on the state, there are tons of barriers, means-testing, work requirements, mandated classes they might not be able to attend (due to childcare/lack of transportation), etc.
Even after the ACA, ER visits are still all the healthcare many people get.