Olives @olives@qoto.org

@olea@mstdn.social ancient olive

olive tone

olives

yes

Oops, I almost forgot, these quotes might not get federated properly.

This Bluesky bridge is wonky.

@olea@mstdn.social @potatoyi.bsky.social@bsky.brid.gy It was distorted by the abyss.

Oh, they're finally getting around to finishing that anime.

The post from two years ago appeared again.

Now, random posts from a week ago going on about how the "election showdown" is coming are appearing.

A random post from two years ago appeared in my feed.

It's remarkably hard to find something I was just looking at shortly prior on this home feed.

It's honestly annoying when someone uses "AI generation" as a synonym for "deepfake" because these are *not* the same things.

The same applies to the "non-consensual" point. If someone is investigating the use of some "deepfake" tool, that is different from an "AI generation tool".

The "source" is a "report" from *2019* (from a British org) which doesn't look into AI generated content, it looks at content branded as being "deepfakes".

"Over 90% of AI-generated images are sexually explicit"
This is pretty much bullshit. This is easily debunkable just by looking at the sheer amount of content on the Internet which is *not*.