Grimy @ Grimy @lemmy.world

Posts

14

Comments

1,508

Joined

2 yr. ago

I seriously hope his parade becomes a big farce. Its already a symbol for so much of his bullshit. If it barely makes it anywhere and becomes a circus, I might buy a cake to celebrate.

I don't see the irony. They perceive AI as a loop hole and need to squash it to keep their grip on things. If anybody can just prompt a movie in ten years, their business is dead. If a small group of indie animators can make a fully fledged movie, their business is dead.

They made it fucked up in their favor, this lawsuit is a continuation of that.

Ya, I'm guessing insurance costs have risen and that definitely comes into play.

Disney isn't fighting for the little guy. They will still agressively use it to cull their own workforce. They want to control who can use it and don't want to compete against an indie animation scene.

This is corporate AI against open source AI.

Yup. Sucks for everyone having fun jailbreaking them. It is going to get much harder.

Horses simply dont belong at a protest.

State rights, not state lefts. Learn the difference commi-cali.

Those are actually some very good results. Funny situation, if the copyright companies win the AI legislative war, 4chan is going to get twice as much as reddit did for the data at the minimum.

It's also interesting the model gets worse faster if it has to untrain the toxic data so to speak.

"Artificial intelligence refers to computer systems that can perform complex tasks normally done by human-reasoning, decision making, creating, etc.

There is no single, simple definition of artificial intelligence because AI tools are capable of a wide range of tasks and outputs, but NASA follows the definition of AI found within EO 13960, which references Section 238(g) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019.

• Any artificial system that performs tasks under varying and unpredictable circumstances without significant human oversight, or that can learn from experience and improve performance when exposed to data sets.
• An artificial system developed in computer software, physical hardware, or other context that solves tasks requiring human-like perception, cognition, planning, learning, communication, or physical action.
• An artificial system designed to think or act like a human, including cognitive architectures and neural networks.
• A set of techniques, including machine learning that is designed to approximate a cognitive task.
• An artificial system designed to act rationally, including an intelligent software agent or embodied robot that achieves goals using perception, planning, reasoning, learning, communicating, decision-making, and acting."

This is from NASA (emphasis mine). https://www.nasa.gov/what-is-artificial-intelligence/

The problem is that you are reading the word intelligence and thinking it means the system itself needs to be intelligent, when it only needs to be doing things that we would normally attribute to intelligence. Computer vision is AI, but a software that detects a car inside a picture and draws a box around it isn't intelligent. It is still considered AI and has been considered AI for the past three decades.

Now show me your blog post that told you that AI isnt AI because it isn't thinking.

Dog has a very clear definition, so when you call a sausage in a bun a "Hot Dog", you are actually a fool.

Smart has a very clear definition, so no, you do not have a "Smart Phone" in your pocket.

Also, that is not the definition of intelligence. But the crux of the issue is that you are making up a definition for AI that suits your needs.

"You" applies to anyone that doesnt understand what AI means. It's a portmanteau word for a lot of things.

Npcs ARE AI. AI doesnt mean "human level intelligence" and never did. Read the wiki if you need help understanding.

No, it shows how certain people misunderstand the meaning of the word.

You have called npcs in video games "AI" for a decade, yet you were never implying they were somehow intelligent. The whole argument is strangely inconsistent.

If you curve the aluminium foil somehow, you can actually refelct it back. They did tests on youtube where they used a flipped riot shield and it work.

I will probably buy the game just for this.

If you are talking about posts where people lay out their problems and ask for advice, it is probably to avoid getting doxed.

"Integrated development environment" was thhe first thing I thought of personally.

I know there's at least one dead fireman that proves god protected Trump or so I'm told.

1. Ask chatgpt the question while outlining your need for sources and direct quotes. (30 secs)
2. The bot searches. (30 secs to 10 minute depending on if deep research is used. This is free time you can spend doing something else productive, even the same or similar tasks on your end)
3. Click the links and ctrl-f to find the quote or keywords if its a large document. Verify it isn't bullshit. (1 min)

4a. It is valid, the link and relevant quotes are added to a work document to be used later (1 min)

4b. It is not valid, the legwork must be done yourself (10-20 minutes, maybe more)

Maybe its because I'm coming from a research perspective, where you need to put sources on everything. I would never take something chatgpt gave me at face value and dump it into a doc. That being said, I feel like the argument boils down to "since the tool can be used stupidly, I won't try to use it properly".

And there are many uses for a variety of things. I have it build me summaries of papers when I make a bank of them for example. I just finished reading the paper, so I can verify and modify the summary. I could write it but I dont want to be bothered trying to figure out the best way to give the most info in one paragraph. Chatgpt already writes better hyper condensed blocks of texts then me anyways.

Its good at making tables too and its hard to make mistakes when I'm giving it all the data in the first place.

How did you get "redo" from "verifying sources"? Even if only 10% is good in any case (very rare but it is better at some subjects then others), that is still 10% you don't have to do. What we currently have is also the worst it's going to be.

Keep burying your head in the sand but you will just become the laughing stock of your office. You guys are aiming to become this decades "boomer that types with one finger".

Just the amount of time I save when I ask it to build me tables I can drop into documents is worth it. It's my information, I just don't have to copy paste it one by one into excel. People that are anti-AI in professional contexts are actually nuts.

Yes, you are still expected to participate and verify what is said. I also dont copy paste stuff from websites without verification since god knows the internet in general isn't always right either.

It's a productivity tool meant to help you, not do the job for you.