AI generated art, plagiarization catastrophe
Can you please have a discussion about a topic that is being largely ignored by mainstream media on AI generated art. Millions of artists have had their content stolen, and uploaded to predatorial AI generators, trying to pass off manipulated images as their own. Please do the research necessary before covering this topic. This is an extremely divisive and painful issue for people who have dedicated their life to their craft. I would look into artstation.com, to get a general idea of the outcry. If you order a pizza and the toppings, that does not make you a cook. That is basically what is happening with these generators. But in this case, the pizza was also stolen, and repackaged.
100M PUMP AND DUMP TWITTER GROUP INDICTED BY SEC
https://twitter.com/margot_rubin/status/1603899668391395329 Covered on FOX news. There is a community on twitter called FinTwit. This group that is being indicted by the SEC led the charge during 2020 getting new traders into the world of day trading stocks. Saagar might be interested in this.
Moral Caveat
I love that you guys always try to contextualize events, most notably with caveats. I have come to consider Krystal the "Queen of Caveats," and Saagar the King. Being an adjunct philosophy professor teaching Ethics, I especially appreciate caveats that point out that although something is legal, it may not be moral; or as Saagar is usually the one to point out, something may be immoral, yet should remain legal for reasons that I tend to agree with. So, it should come as no surprise that I am very disappointed that since the results of the midterm election (including Walker), I have not heard either of you make an important caveat. When mentioning that all of Trump's candidates lost, and Republicans did worse than expected, we should remember that this is the direct result of Pelosi and the DNC's risky and most likely unethical, means justify the ends, strategy of backing many of those candidates. If Trump is to blame, then Pelosi and the DNC deserve some credit. The fact that unethical methods are sometimes practical or successful is a difficult thing to acknowledge and report on because it might lead some people to conclude that such courses of action are justified. But in true Breaking Points fashion, we believe it is better to report on these facts, so people can openly discuss them, argue the pros and cons, and come to their own conclusions; rather than pulling a Fauci and ignoring, massaging, or manipulating these kinds of facts, so people will come to the conclusions we want them to. So, I have two questions. The first, has the omission of this caveat been a coincidence, or was it intentional, and if so why? The second, will you promise to do your best to make this caveat whenever mentioning Trump's candidates failing, or the Republicans' poor performance in the midterms?