Olives @olives@qoto.org

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

This Bluesky bridge is wonky.

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*.

The E.U.'s "Big Tech" "transparency" database has so little context in it that I wonder how useful it is to anyone.

A fur suit sounds like a magic artefact that'll turn someone into a humanoid furry creature.