If it's a hobby, I'd stay away from ROS, as it's a pain in the cloaca to set up and use. Just build stuff, and run it with one script or ten if you need to. Build stuff. Debug. When you need ROS, you'll know it.

is that how consent works? I would have expected licenses would override that. although it's possible that the original use as a test image may have violated whatever contract she had with her producer in the first place.

tl;dr yes it is

she did not explicitly consent for that photo to be used in computer graphics research or millions of sample projects. moreover, the whole legality of using that image for those purposes is murky because I doubt anyone ever received proper license from the actual rights-holder (playboy magazine). so the best way to go about this is just common-sense good-faith approach: if the person depicted asks you to please knock it off, you just do it, unless you actively want to be a giant a-hole to them.

Books don't have an explicit no-LLM license.

They have a very explicit "No unauthorized copies or transfer to other media" and they still got shafted.

Are you financially able to take on open ai, anthropic, Facebook, etc? If not, then it doesn't matter what licence you use.

so why are you defending instead of condemning them?

I'm not defending anything? Replying to someone doesn't mean I hold an opposite viewpoint. You don't have any clue what my opinion is because I haven't posted it.

Yes, you can get a lot more mileage out of hinting and indignation than taking a public position.

I think the real question here is why after this many comments you still haven’t taken a position other than generally arguing with other people. When people do that, especially online, it generally means they are being deliberately opaque with their opinions. It’s intentional. So the reasonable thing to conclude is that you disagree until you say otherwise. If that’s not your goal then try a different approach here.

I agree that it’s frustrating to be misinterpreted or misrepresented, but if you fail to represent yourself at any stage (which you seem to agree you haven’t done) then that’s what’s going to happen. So say what you think or just move on. I think at this point we can stop playing these rhetorical games.

were they really firing it randomly into empty air? they sound even less competent than I thought.

I tell all my friends: send me your prompts. Don't send me the resulting slop.

Yes. There's a number of people who have successfully defeated the Trump regime's attempts to oppress them by securing a piece of paper saying they're not allowed to. It doesn't work all the time, and you have every right to be furious about the times when it doesn't, but it's counterproductive to overgeneralize and conclude that legal rights don't matter at all.

it didn't work for those with a 1st, 2nd or 4th amendment rights.

we can do both. we can write code for the parts where it matters and let the LLM code the parts that aren't as critical.