Skip Navigation

Posts
3
Comments
1,038
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Ignoring the context, this image is quite hot. I hope there were no actual Nazis involved.

  • Complains about racism. "West Europeans have a superiority complex". So you actually aren't against stereotypes? Or are stereotypes okay as long as they don't target you?

  • That's identity politics for you. Don't belong to the groups which are considered oppressed? You are fair game to be made fun of or insulted.

  • That's absolutely disgusting. Reminds me of these subreddits where men come together to discuss countries based on how traditional the women are + how desperate (so easier to get a wife) + how beneficial it would be to have a passport in that country. They talked about the women as if they were dog breeds.

  • You do realise that the models stole the art from people all over the world, yes? It's not like someone in Indonesia drawing fan art can simply profit off their own work the way people like you now can.

    I also think this attitude ("just get a job to support your hobby while I get to profit of your work") shows an overall lack of respect for artists.

  • "Soul" is the word we use for something we don't scientifically understand yet. Unless you did discover how human brains work, in that case I congratulate you on your Nobel prize.

    You can abstract a complex concept so much it becomes wrong. And abstracting how the brain works to "it's a probability machine" definitely is a wrong description. Especially when you want to use it as an argument of similarity to other probability machines.

  • Current models aren't intelligent. Not even by the flimsy and unprecise definition of intelligence we currently have.

    Wanted to post a whole rant but then saw vexikron already did so I spare you xD

  • As an artist you draw with an understanding of the human body, though. An understanding current models don't have because they aren't actually intelligent.

    Maybe when a human is an absolute beginner in drawing they will think about the different lines and replicate even how other people draw stuff that then looks like a hand.

    But eventually they will realise (hopefully, otherwise they may get frustrated and stop drawing) that you need to understand the hand to draw one. It's mass, it's concept or the idea of what a hand is.

    This may sound very abstract and strange but creative expression is more complex than replicating what we have seen a million times. It's a complex function unique to the human brain, an organ we don't even scientifically understand yet.

  • In general I agree with you, but AI doesn't learn the concept of what a circle is. AI reproduces the most fitting representation of what we call a circle. But there is no understanding of the concept of a circle. This may sound nit picking, but I think it's important to make the distinction.

    That is why current models aren't regarded as actual intelligence, although people already call them that...

  • I think the difference in artistic expression between modern humans and humans in the past comes down to the material available (like the actual material to draw with).

    Humans can draw without seeing any image ever. Blind people can create art and draw things because we have a different understanding of the world around us than AI has. No human artist needs to look at a thousand or even at 1 picture of a banana to draw one.

    The way AI sees and "understands" the world and how it generates an image is fundamentally different from how the human brain conveys the object banana into an image of a banana.

  • $20/mo

    good value for people without much money

    The absolute majority of people can not afford that. This is especially true for huge part of the art that was used to train various models on.

    AI currently is a tool for rich people by rich people which uses the work of poor people who themselves won't be able to benefit from it.

  • People pirate and then wonder why small developer studios for example go broke or software becomes more expensive or less plenty. It's so dumb it hurts.

  • Well there is scientific reasons to set the age at 25 because apparently that's when our brains are actually fully grown. It's much more arbitrary to put it at a random number like 18 or 21 which has no basis in science or rationality whatsoever, it was just picked randomly.

  • I don't understand what you are arguing about it than. The post doesn't say we should vote for age gaps in relationships to be banned. Supposedly you think it's good to talk about the downsides of these relationships, but here you are, calling it a "conservative Trojan horse". It seems like you actually do not want people to criticise it.

  • Horror movies are unfairly judged because most people who do not like horror movies watch them for the wrong reasons.

  • At least where I live as a millennial you could have had a really nice childhood - until you finished school. Most struggled to find a job. Businesses would hire you as unpaid intern at best, etc. All while your parents (the boomers) expected you to have house, car and family in your twenties.

  • I pulled out what you wrote earlier:

    Michael Phelps is double jointed. He’s the best swimmer in the world because he has a mutation that makes his feet more effective flippers. You said a flaw is still a disability even when everyone has it. Nearly everyone is single jointed, and that makes us worse at swimming than Phelps. Your argument would imply that single jointed people are all disabled.

    You can’t define disability in absolute terms, or you’ll run into problems like that. You have to define disability in socially constructed terms.

    And none of it has anything to do with my point or the definition of what makes something being categorized as a disability.

    1. I never wrote a flaw is still a disability when everyone has it. I actually wrote the opposite but you didn't understand it.
    2. Phelps mutation is not classified as a disability. So it is a moot example for the discussion. Even when using as a hypothetical example.
    3. You also did not understand the definition of what makes a disability. Just because certain disabilities can lead to a benefit in certain areas for certain individuals, that neither makes the disability in general not being a disability anymore. Nor does suddenly everyone else should be classified as disabled.

    I try to give an example that's perhaps easier to understand.

    Blindness is considered a disability, because most people are not blind and our society, most of it's appliances, etc. are therefore build around non-blind people.

    That is already part of the definition of what makes something a disability.

    A (permanent) blind person will not be able to live a life equally to how they would live their life when they were not blind. And the negative effects (!) of it will be present for longer than six months.

    Even when the whole world would make effort into building accommodations for blind people, it would still be seen as a disability. Although other things would change on how blind people are treated in our society.

    When in a parallel universe there is an earth with humans where everybody is naturally blind, blindness wouldn't be a disability.

    When suddenly superman-esque humans were born it doesn't suddenly make everyone who isn't superman-like a disabled person, but being susceptible to the negative effects of kryptonite could possibly be seen as a disability, when kryptonite was somehow part of our daily lifes.

    Until the superman-like people become the defacto standard human, then the odd one born without supermanpowers would start to be seen as disabled, even though they are immune to kryptonite.

    What does not make sense it to try to draw a line between intrinsic and non intrinsic disabilities. And claim that something is not a disability anymore just because people could potentially start to accommodate it better.

  • I didn't contradict myself, you didn't understood what I was writing. Otherwise, please provide where I contradicted myself.

    You tried to substantiate your claim that the question whether or not something is a disability depends on (social) context with mentioning that the "flaw" that Michael Phelps has supposedly aided him in being a better swimmer.

    My point is that, for the definition whether or not something is categorized as a disability, it doesn't matter whether it is not disabling in certain contexts for certain individuals. Or whether you can imagine a society where it's not disabling.

    "Intrinsic" and "non-intrinsic" disabilities, this differentiation does not make sense.

  • Do you mean the question where you tried to paint me as dumber than you because I do not agree with your reasoning?

    Yeah, I won't answer to your narcissistic ramblings because your premise is wrong. I have no trouble understanding your reasoning, I just think it's wrong.

    What is and isn't categorized as a disability isn't subjectively decided randomly. It's a decision based on our current real life situation. Not your head cannon.

    Autism is considered a disability because of the definition of what makes a disability I provided above. While you personally can say that you feel not disabled, a claim that "autism is not a disability because when people were different it wouldn't matter" isn't rational reasoning.