Drewelite @ Drewelite @lemmynsfw.com

Posts

0

Comments

334

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think it does, because photos have always been an inaccurate representation of what a person sees. You zoom in on my face in a picture and you see a bunch of pixels. That's not what my face looks like, I'm not made of tiny boxes. If I AI upscale it, it looks a lot closer. My argument here is simply: the statement that an AI dependent image is inherently less representative of reality, is not necessarily true.

Do you think night vision produces a 'fake' image? Maybe you do, but my point is, that's your opinion. You might think that accurate representation of the light level is more important than accurate representation of the objects in front of the lens. But someone else might not. Same way a colorized photo can give a more accurate representation of reality with false information.

An AI edited photo might not necessarily be less representative of whatever is in the photo. Imagine an image taken in a very dark room, then an AI enhancement makes it look like the lights are on. You can actually get a much better idea of what's in the room, but a less good idea of what the lighting was like. So it comes down to opinion, which one is more representative of reality? Because no photo since the beginning of time has been completely representative of what humans actually see with their eyes. It's always been a trade-off of: what do we change to give humans the image they want with the technology we have.

I think the reality is that there is no reality, there is only perception. Composition does add to remove things from the photo. Light, both the amount and its wavelength, is a thing. Whether the lens picks up the pores on a person's face is a thing. Whether The background seems close or far as a thing. But I agree that camera makers would tow any philosophical line to help them drive profits.

Months absolutely. Years, very rarely. But wild that it still happens like 8 years later. Even though I rather dislike the smell now.

DayZ

I'll argue it's always been that way. It's Just that the pool of data that people are pulling from these days is more homogeneous. It used to be that people had a lot more unique and personal experiences that weren't known to the world. But today everything is shared and given a label by our culture. So if you come up with an idea it's much more likely that someone that has had similar experiences to you, thought of it already. People say there's no more new ideas. Maybe that's true in a sense, but I'd argue nothing's changed except that people know about all the ideas.

Yeah I've seen a lot of weird takes on AI. It all seems to come down to ego guarding: But it can't take my job, it just regurgitates combinations of what it was taught unlike me, only humans can be creative, who wants coffee made by a machine, well you still need a person to do things in the physical world, etc.. Really highlights how difficult it is for people to think about change. Especially a change that might not end with a place for them.

Might be an over simplification, LMAO 😂 But I do think you're right to an extent. Some of the loudest 'feminists' can be pretty negative towards men. While I've found most real feminist to be good people fighting for equality, they often don't seem to want to stand up to these women. I don't know if they fear they will be perceived as antifeminist or what. But it ends up with conversations of gender sometimes entering the 'take your lumps' territory if you're a man. Like, "Thanks for taming the rapist inside you, but us ladies have it covered." Where as being around women with strong traditional values, it can be really sad that they don't respect themselves, but at least they respect you. In moments of selfishness it can feel so good to bask in that respect, even if it's not deserved.

I think pretty much any political movement has the magnetism to attract people who hate the other side. But when the other side agrees, you win. So maybe make your cause hospitable for anyone who wants to further it.

Well put. This is a very salient observation! But as OP said, I think feminism is a particularly bad name. It comes across to many as equivalent to misandrist, matriarchist, or a female only club. Rather than anyone in favor of equality for women.

Problem is that the branding issue is a problem for women too. The vast majority of feminists are great folks who want equality. But it also attracts the self important types that want to use victim status to get ahead or just generally put the other side down. And they're usually the loudest "feminists". That perpetuates the branding problem.

It did what it was asked to do. That's a pretty good employee to have behind the scenes. As for customer facing roles like car salesman, we'll have people for a while until they figure out how to make it less agreeable in certain circumstances. But it'll only need to be one person verifying the work of 50+ car sales a day. Much more efficient than an all human team.

We do have A.I. The Turing test is there for a reason. We just don't have what movies told us A.I. would be like. Corporations don't need an A.I. that can think for itself to replace you. In fact, that's one of the reasons to replace you.

I think if we sit here and debate the nuances of what is or is not intelligence, we will look back on this conversation and laugh at how pedantic it was. Movies have taught us that A.I. is hyper-intelligent, conscious, has it's own objectives, is self aware, etc.. But corporations don't care about that. In fact, to a corporation, I'm sure the most annoying thing about intelligence right now is that it comes packaged with its own free will.

People laugh at what is being called A.I. because it's confidently wrong and "just complicated auto-complete". But ask your coworkers some questions. I bet it won't be long before they're confidently wrong about something and when they're right, it'll probably be them parroting something they learned. Most people's jobs are things like: organize these items on those shelves, mix these ingredients and put it in a cup, get all these numbers from this website and put them in a spreadsheet, write a press release summarizing these sources.

Corporations already have the A.I. they need. You gatekeeping intelligence is just your ego protecting you from the truth: you, or someone dear to you, are already replaceable.

I think we both know that A.I. is possible, I'm saying it's inevitable, and likely already at version 1. I'm sure any version of it would require access to training data. So the ruling here would translate. The only chance the general population has of keeping up with corporations in the ability to generate economic value, is to keep the production of A.I. in the public space.

A.I. exists. It will continue to get better. If letting people use it becomes illegal, they'll just use it themselves and cut us out. A world where the general population have access to A.I. is the only one where we're not totally fucked. I'm not simping for Google or Facebook, I'd much prefer an open source self hostable version. The only way we can stay competitive is if these companies continue to develop these in the open for the consumer market.

General purpose artificial intelligence will exist. Full stop. Intelligence is the most valuable resource in the universe. You're not going to stop it from existing, you're just going to stop them from sharing it with you.

Men tend to trend more irresponsible, women more neurotic, in my experience. There's plenty of exceptions, but on the whole that's what I've seen. Neither is good, both can collapse a relationship. In straight relationships this can result in women taking on everything. Even where she's overcome (or not originally had) any neuroticism, a sufficiently irresponsible man can still put the problem on her shoulders.
What I think you're omitting is that this can happen in reverse.

Even when a man overcomes (or didn't originally have) any irresponsibility, a sufficiently neurotic woman can still put all the problems on him. He has to pull the tasks away from her because she thinks only she can do it 'right'. Only then can he pull his weight. But he then must also do the dance of convincing his partner that he's doing a good job, or she'll just feel compelled to do the work again herself.

Of course most relationships are somewhere between these extremes. And some even see the roles reversed. People are, of course, extremely diverse. But this is a common pattern I've seen.

Obviously Texit

Well if they think that's your fault they're pretty shitty

Cream soda or Dr. Pepper. Or just check all the boxes with Dr. Pepper Cream Soda

Yeah same. Empowering people to be more creative has never stuck me as something that needs to be gatekept. Tools have constantly improved allowing more people to become artists. If it's the copying of styles you're worried about, I'd take it up with every artist that's learned from Picasso or Da Vinci.