I am criticizing you, and I'm far from the only person doing so.
If your ego can't allow you to see a difference between the two - and your comments suggest it can't - that isn't my problem.
>We do, and they're awesome.
Cool. So you admit you didn't personally, entirely, as a "solo engineer" do it all. That at least is something.
>Although an anti-AI person like you would say that wasn't my work and that it the revenue just created itself.
OK so we're just arguing with strawmen now I guess. Fair enough, it's my fault for engaging. I should know what I'm getting into.
>We're going to build open source infrastructure and weights, and we'll need to earn money to subsidize the build out.
But open source doesn't need that. Gimp doesn't need millions of dollars in investment to subsidize infrastructure. Neither does Krita.
You do because you've created a "software factory" that requires the expense of burning tokens, which of course most open source projects can't afford.
It doesn't seem like you're building open source, it seems like you're building a moat.
>I'm working harder than I've ever worked in my life. You anti-AI people don't understand this because you don't try.
Brother everything you do - or rather everything your AI does and that you take credit for - is built on our work. The work that you mock, deride, and gleefully try to undermine while bragging about the money you make doing so.
At some point the hype is going to die and people are going to judge your products on their actual stability functionality. So far everyone who reviews them at the very least finds them fundamentally broken, and there is no professional adoption of any significance, at least not outside of the AI sphere.
The arrogance is astounding coming from someone whose photoshop clone can't even open a photoshop file.