Depends on who it is and why they’re saying that.

You’re thinking of German “Plätzchen” which is reserved for “special” cookies on Christmas and such. The English word “cookie” more directly corresponds to “Keks” and has at least the same origin, if it’s not from “cookie”.

I honestly couldn’t explain the difference between “Plätzchen” and “Keks” but I know it when I see it. There’s something more “refined” about Plätzchen. Might be about the ingredients? Oh no that’s a rabbithole in i go been nice knowing y-

Edit: I see there’s a difference in how these terms are used in the various German-speaking areas. I’m from Germany so the above is my perspective.

Edit2: okay, more of a mole hole than a rabbithole. Think of the difference between cup cakes and muffins. Plätzchen are to Kekse what cup cakes are to muffins. The term “Keks” came into German through English sailors and their very simple, long-life food supplies.

Edit3: oh also, “Plätzchen” is ultimately from Latin placenta. Yay.

This has been explained to you and your sockpuppets several times.

every week or so there’s a “man/woman drowns in canal after falling in” story

And yet, across all your sockpuppets, you’ve managed to present two (2) such cases, a year apart.

This has been explained to you and your sockpuppets several times.

I’d say, “welcome back, dear old friend!”, and be grateful they don’t do illegal street racing.

That’s why you always go through all the settings first thing, to find weirdness like that.

In 2062, the world’s leaders will come together and announce, in a joint statement, a year of peace, to give humanity ample opportunity in 2063 to celebrate the 100th birthday of its most beloved cultural treasure, the timelessly iconic British TV series Doctor Who. The anniversary series, consisting of 11 two hour episodes broadcast one a month throughout 2063, culminating in the series finale on 23 November, will see the 32nd Doctor revisit dear old friends and old enemies and face their greatest challenge yet before regenerating in the finale into David Tennant.

without hating it

Note that this does not mean “loving it”. If I waited until I loved every single pen stroke I ever made, I wouldn’t have a comic.

Selection chosen deliberately

That was a double take for the ages, mate ;D

Yep, same, it’s a bit of a weakness of the Fediverse imho.

That’s a good point but wouldn’t it be preferable to have one AI run one time instead of several of them doing the work again and again?

(Assuming that we’re even okay with AI generated descriptions in the first place which I’m not for reasons I’ve laid out in my other comments but I’m talking hypothetically)

“@Lumidaub” is a reference to me. The system added that because they were, technically, replying to my comment here.

I know what you’re saying but I truly think for most people it’s simply that they’re overthinking it. They think every single thing needs to be in the description, with references explained and sourced and whatnot. That does sound exhausting. And I have written a handful of descriptions like that for pictures where I thought the details were interesting enough to justify the effort. But really, a simple “The thirteenth Doctor and Rose Tyler embracing and deeply kissing” is already very sufficient in most cases (add “standing on an asteroid in front of a field of glittering stars - digital colour painting” if you have the spoons). So imho it’s better to educate them and encourage short, concise descriptions than to give in to the slop.

I mean, if you put any image online that hasn’t been protected/poisoned in some way, you have to (unfortunately) assume it’s in some AI’s training data anyway. If the tradeoff for a useful description (! See my other comments about the lack of usefulness) is that an image is also fed into one more training corpus, that would be worth a thought, imho. If the image is protected/poisoned, I’d indeed encourage this whole hypothetical process, just to further sabotage the data.

True and one sentence written by a human who understands the image is better than twenty sentences by a word prediction machine.

Those are different mechanisms. Object recognition doesn’t mean the AI is now trained on the image and can reproduce it (which is btw why AI can still “visually” recognise what’s in an image that has been nightshaded/glazed).

If you can get an AI to produce an actually useful description, that would be extremely interesting. However, AIs don’t know what’s important about an image and will fill up the description with useless information, effectively spam for the person that needs a description.

Write just a sentence, describe the thing that is important, while keeping in mind why you’re even posting the image, and it’s going to take less time than asking the AI.

Oh come on, you were doing really well with your questions being interesting and novel and now you’re back to asking nonsense that you’ve asked and had answered a billion times before.

And if someone still enjoys those “horrible” shows at 87, it’s okay for them to watch them. That’s the point.

This has been explained to you and your sockpuppets several times.