AwesomeLowlander @ AwesomeLowlander @sh.itjust.works

Posts

11

Comments

889

Joined

1 yr. ago

It called out to something deep in the soul. Hold it in your hand, and you had power. More power than any bow or spear - they just stored up your muscles’ power, when you thought about it. But the gonne gave you power from outside. You didn’t use it, it used you.

Girl genius, very cool steampunk mad scientist universe.

Scaled is unfortunately useless for /all, it gets flooded with posts from communities with like 5 subscribers. I don't understand why they didn't implement a simple minimum upvote filter on it, would have made it so much more useful.

Spoiler: It probably isn't

They hungry, we thirsty. It's a match made in the Bacchanalia

Man fined for loudspeaker call at French station

I'm not sure why you think it would be difficult to enforce if there was any desire to do so.

Counterpoint, if you want quiet, enforce silence instead of some other bullshit.

My comment is in no way related to the CEO dude

he's using right-wing talking points like misusing the term "triggered" to mean "upset left-leaning people".

At this point you can pretty much pick up that term from anywhere. We might think it's dumb, we might use it sarcastically, but it's entered our lexicon.

It was absolutely a misunderstanding, they misunderstood that it wasn't business as usual like in the US.

Yeah, scaled subscribed works since you're sorting a curated bunch of comms. Scaled all is just pointless.

I find scaled all gives me a bunch of single upvote posts from communities with <20 subscribers. They really should have implemented a minimum community size filter

Here's the result of a quick Google. Huh, turns out it is possible...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/16388009_Can_a_cat_smother_and_kill_a_baby

Exactly which part of 'cat might sit on an infant's face' is improbable and baseless fearmongering? Some of them certainly do it to adults. Don't bring up autism, that's a scientific impossibility while this has reasons for being possible. They're two entirely different things.

harmful myths

Would you care to explain how this might be 'harmful'?

Does it have to be a 'significant' number of cases to mention the possibility?

Edit: Unrelated snopes links aside, turns out it does happen.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/16388009_Can_a_cat_smother_and_kill_a_baby

From their own freaking snopes link:

It is possible a cat might lie across the face of a sleeping child and thus upon extremely rare instances accidentally cause a death, but that is not the old wives' tale at hand wherein the cat does so with malice aforethought.

Do you qualify as a scientist if you're studying it involuntarily?

By "that", i meant mass producing images and making it hard to tell if it was done the hard way or the easy way (while peoplw assuming it was done the hard way)

No, because the common sense assumption at this point is that everything is done with photoshop or similar technology.

People dont automatically assume a picture is made by AI the same way they would assume a picture is photoshopped if it was clearly faked

They will in a few years. We've been through this whole cycle, is my point. The technology is here to stay, and we're gonna have to adapt to it. No amount of complaining will change it.

A future where images are all assumed to be made with AI is hopefully obviously bad

Why so?

Photoshop is magnitudes of effort less than pre-photoshop technology. The amount of images you can churn out quickly with photoshop is certainly mass production when compared with what you can get done without photoshop, for much less effort.

is anyone doing that? There are people doing those things with AI

Is anyone photoshopping images? Hell yes. Do you think we just invented fake images?

See my point? Replace 'AI' with photoshop and your exact argument could have come from 2 decades ago.

Dude, you seem to have missed the original point of the comment. It was sarcasm, and the point was that AI is just the next technological step after photoshop. We had the same discussions decades ago when photoshop was new, with all the purists complaining how photoshop was a horrible technology that would put photographers out of business, they were 'soulless', etc. Now we're rehashing all the same old stupid and tired arguments, but with AI instead of photoshop.