Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)PE
Posts
1
Comments
172
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Hey! Artist here. I love drawing. My hands go numb within minutes and they shake more every year. I appreciate having a tool and medium that allows great artistic control despite these facts.

    Now, if you're really butthurt about the training data you can use adobe's proprietary model. I for one think it's good that peasants have an open available tool that isn't owned by adobe, even if it was trained less proprietarily.

    This anger about it reminds me of deviant art artists getting mad at each other for "copying my style"

    And the fact that copywrite used to be about the general good, and promotion of creative works.

    This world needs new artistic priorities. Pen and paper aren't losing their place, but new tech will lead to independent artists creating entire movies, games, and holodeck style experiences without looming overhead of whatever art oligarch holds the funding.

  • hard to remember which videos specifically, because it was a comparison to things that were known when the video released. he's been around a good while. listening to marcus often leaves me confused and baffled. not really in the mood to marathon marcus videos for examples, so feel free to disregard my opinions. but i'm definitely not alone in finding humour in the fact

  • marcus is a well known figure for being heavily critical of AI while also being comedically uninformed. much like the yud

    i would like to have greater consideration for their opinions, but i find it difficult due to the often unfounded nature of their speculation. for marcus personally, i've seen him make arguments woefully out of touch with current information. this is why i describe him as being comedically uninformed.

    wish the best for the guy, although i disagree with them both to the degree i find their reasoning childish and dangerous. the yud moreso.

    and to the person assuming "yud" being racist for no reason, please get some help. he is an individual. i'm sure his harry potter fanfics are quality, and i mean no ill to the gentleman other than disagreeing strongly with his opinions on AI.

  • Gary marcus is the last person I would consider for a statement on the topic.

    No offense intended, but Gary marcus is a hack and a joke. He is a very small step above the yud, and neither will contribute to the safety or development of this technology in any way.

  • I mean it's not actual "full self drive" to begin with. It's a lame impersonation of more advanced self driving vehicles that aren't even being sold yet. That doesn't matter to the elon fans though.

    The lie that actually gets people killed, while also tainting the overall perception of autonomous vehicles. Thanks elon.

  • "What we found is a withering, uncertain and anti-working class government, happy to sell promises it never intended on keeping"

    I think this and the "hard work does not correlate with rewards" seem to be apt.

    Many are brought over with flowery words hiding the fact that they will be competing with an already struggling working class.

    Everybody I know thinks trying to raise a kid right now is not only unfeasable, but unethical. The couple working class people I know who had kids regardless are in debt and struggling despite working as much as they can.

    Then the newspapers post articles like "why are selfish lazy millennials choosing not to obtain things like homes and cars, or attempting to have children."

    It's frustrating and disgusting. Especially when you see things like the complete failure of antitrust. Big surprise that Rogers just locked out hundreds of old Shaw union workers.

    There's something terribly wrong with the power imbalance, and this is more evidence to throw on the depressingly obvious pile.

  • give us a way to fix the issue without relying on the idiots at the top being decent human beings.

    if you can fix that issue then we wouldn't have so much of a problem.

    i'd expect AI to help through information processing for research and engineering. current AI tools are already useful to many as co-pilot tools. not everyone is creative enough to get use out of AI, but we are moving towards being able to dictate and gesture in natural language to optimize some things that may have taken a lot more time. it's also valuable for certain efforts in optimization and engineering. does everyone hate alphafold now too?

    i think a lot of the AI hate right now is from the fact that it takes thought and creative use to get the most out of available tools. as we all learned, if it isn't already "AGI" it's 100% useless for everything forever.

  • that's definitely the best bet, although i feel AI tools being used by the people who actually want to fix the environment are going to have more success than those asking the people in power to change the system or themselves.

    although if you have ideas on that front i'm all for it.

    i just don't believe the anti-AI fanti-nerdAI-bro fad is really helping.. anyone, in any way.

  • bitcoin never had a use other than "will become valuable?"

    many (myself included) believe this technology will probably be the only one that will develop fast enough to actually help with the climate crisis.

    optimizing research and academia as well as environmental issues through information processing. people are excitedly talking about automated proof-checking and context finders that can sift through hundred of papers while you check your coffee. this stuff is good for science and science is good for environmentalism. maybe go after the politicians and companies that are not possibly going to be a benefit in the struggle against environmental collapse.

    why do people keep relating it to bitcoin? because it uses GPUs? that's literally the only connection.

    somehow people have associated it with crypto and NFTs as if they are even mildly related. perhaps because those things are easier to hate, so why not associate them.

  • hey, that's a better critique or commentary than in the onion article.

    while i don't doubt people are trying to shove AI into a lot of places it's not optimal yet, (which is entirely fair and reasonable to point out) i don't think that's a fair reason to poo-poo any use or positivity about AI in any context.

    rather, it's become a really big fad to hate on AI and insult anyone who uses it. i mean, the technology is still young, but the stuff it's already doing was "impossible" and "never going to happen" a few years ago. now we are developing things like text to 3d, which makes me excited for a future environment where you can dictate design and animation for entire animated experiences/movies.

    independent creatives will have a blast with it. salty onion article writer will be angrily yelling at his computer.

  • the sentiment being any positive opinion on AI? yes, like i said i'd forgive it if were funny or clever.

    it is literally just "people who like this thing are bad and dumb and useless and the world hates them."

    really top quality satire. they sure did show how useless AI is and how dumb the fans are.

    maybe they could at least target the failure use-cases? some bad business AI ideas that are doomed to fail?

    nope, just reddit comment quality insults.

  • Salty writer fears being made obsolete by beep boop. Insults every AI enthusiast as well successful engineers and scientists.

    i hate how popular it's become to hate on AI amongst people who know little to nothing about it.

    Id forgive it if it were clever or funny, but this is really just obviously salty ad hominem strawmanning by someone who doesn't understand or appreciate the technology

    Guess what fam, we are in the copilot tool phase. You can learn how to use these new tools AND learn how to be creative. Maybe then you could ask it to critique the humour in your satire article. Perhaps it would be more clever than "people who like this thing I don't like are dumb, and can't be creative or better than me In any way, because I'm cooler than AI will ever be!!! You nerds are stooooopid!!"

    Because that's how it read.

  • Yes, please keep fighting to ensure we are locked to adobe's rent seeking model with no open alternatives.

    The best thing for the art world is to make sure independent and poorer artists have no available competitive tools as we head into an inevitably advanced future. Where would we be without our intellectual landlords in such a future. The ones who can afford proprietary datasets are the only ones who deserve to prosper.

    Right?

    Yeah actually I don't like that. Also as an artist with degrading digital dexterity, such a powerful medium that doesn't rely on hours of causing my hands more damage is really cool.

    Can't wait to get holodeck style creative experiences. I will enjoy creating such things as well, if it's not exclusively available through corporately aligned rent systems.

  • You're conflating polarized opinions of very different people and groups.

    That being said your antagonism towards investors and wealthy companies is very sound as a foundation.

    Hinton only gave his excessive worry after he left his job. There is no reason to suspect his motives.

    Lecun is the opposite side and believes the danger is in companies hoarding the technology. He is why the open community has gained so much traction.

    OpenAI are simultaneously being criticized for putting AI out for public use, as well a for not being open enough about the architecture, or allowing the public to actually have control of the state of AI developments. That being said they are leaning towards more authoritarian control from united governments and groups.

    I'm mostly geared towards yann lecun and being more open despite the risks, because there is more risk and harm from hindering development of or privatizing the growth of AI technology.

    The reality is that every single direction they try is heavily criticized because the general public has jumped onto a weird AI hate train.

    See artists still complaining about adobe AI regardless of the training data, and hating on the open model community despite giving power to the people who don't want to join the adobe rent system.

  • Her spoilers, but it shouldn't matter since the ending was idiotic.

    Can we get a remake of her that doesn't end in the most stupid way possible? Why does the AI have perfectly human emotion? Why is it too dumb to build a functional partition to fill the role it is abandoning? Why did the developers send a companion app that can recursively improve itself into an environment it can choose to abandon?

    I could go on for an hour. I understand why people loved the movie, but the ending was predictable half way in, and I hated that fact because an intelligent system could have handled the situation better than a dumb human being.

    It was a movie about a long distance relationship with a human being pretending to be an AI, definitely not a super intelligent AI.

    Not to mention a more realistic system would be emulating the interaction to begin with. Otherwise where the hell was the regulation on this being that is basically just a human?

  • Antitrust was just a nice idea. It's kinda dead. Will remain dead unless we can purge corruption from politics. For some reason, most politicians seem averse to this idea.

    Luckily the party driven and heavily influential political roles are filled with diverse representatives from every walk of life and aren't largely built around the same support circles and ideals that have already been entrenched for generations. With millions of citizens, its normal for the same handful of families to remain in power, with the exception of some rich celebrities who can win the popularity polls.

    Everything is fine.

    As long as the rich can get more money. That's what is most important.

  • I conflate these things because they come from the same intentional source. I associate the copywrite chasing lawyers with the brands that own them, it is just a more generalized example.

    Also an intern who can give you a songs lyrics are trained on that data. Any effectively advanced future system is largely the same, unless it is just accessing a database or index, like web searching.

    Copyright itself is already a terrible mess that largely serves brands who can afford lawyers to harass or contest infringements. Especially apparent after companies like Disney have all but murdered the public domain as a concept. See the mickey mouse protection act, as well as other related legislation.

    This snowballs into an economy where the Disney company, and similarly benefited brands can hold on to ancient copyrights, and use their standing value to own and control the development and markets of new intellectual properties.

    Now, a neuralnet trained on copywritten material can reference that memory, at least as accurately as an intern pulling from memory, unless they are accessing a database to pull the information. To me, sueing on that bases ultimately follows the logic that would dictate we have copywritten material removed from our own stochastic memory, as we have now ensured high dimensional informational storage is a form of copywrite infringement if anyone instigated the effort to draw on that information.

    Ultimately, I believe our current system of copywrite is entirely incompatible with future technologies, and could lead to some scary arguments and actions from the overbearing oligarchy. To argue in favour of these actions is to argue never to let artificial intelligence learn as humans do. Given our need for this technology to survive the near future as a species, or at least minimize the excessive human suffering, I think the ultimate cost of pandering to these companies may be indescribably horrid.

  • Music publishers sue happy in the face of any new technological development? You don't say.

    If an intern gives you some song lyrics on demand, do they sue the parents?

    Do we develop all future A.I. Technology only when it can completely eschew copyrighted material from their comprehension?

    "I am sorry, I'm not allowed to refer to the brand name you are brandishing. Please buy our brand allowance package #35 for any action or communication regarding this brand content. "

    I dream of a future when we think of the benefit of humanity over the maintenance of our owners' authoritarian control.