Even though I haven't read the actual ruling, speculatively, it seems like a dangerous precedent. For instance, search engines and LLM-powered search might now be liable too, including with respect to training data. Science too, maybe.
Nice idea! Simple but no one has done it previously, so that counts. (As per some posts, I stand corrected, but still, I believe no one has done it as an implementation.)
One of the photos seems heavily and badly manipulated, but, oh well, it is a good "photo" nevertheless. Though, why bother, I wonder; you're only working against yourself. And recall that this one was supposed to be from the 2010s, i.e. well-before the AI-post-truth era. But even then, it went to the Atlantic et al. based on a quick Google Image search.
I agree about sources, but it is dated March 2025, so I doubt whether the slop comment is accurate. Besides, the actual tattoos (well, some of them) were "beautiful" (scare quotes intended for cultural reasons).
