Peanut @ Peanutbjelly @sopuli.xyz

Posts

1

Comments

172

Joined

2 yr. ago

the point was that i think my statement provided should be reasonable in use regardless of frequency of its relevance to your perception of what is the norm. i state this generally due to my opinions being shut down for not being another person's personal experience.

as i've stated, my perspective has been potently reinforced over the course of the whole of my life, regardless of whether your personal experience matches. i think arguing past that is equally arguing from personal experience on any side, but arguing that i cannot make my concerns known or relevant is unreasonable to me.

i also personally believe the denial and ignorance of this topic is responsible for the growing of environments that inevitably leads to bad actors being more encouraged and aggressive in their actions and opinions. that "fire hose" is a lot larger than it should be, because there is denial that ANY bad actors exist within the space on the other side. i've also personally been aggrieved by the 'water pouring' from the "left." to remove myself from that analogy, and make a blatant statement. the experiences that i've had on the side of the political spectrum that i consider myself to be on has allowed itself to become inclusive of very harmful and evil actors that have affected me personally, as well as others i personally know. i've also seen bad actors (or ignorant moderates) on the other side of the spectrum be enflamed or more radical by this.

both the social issues that are ignored due to this issue, as well as the pushback from any aggrieved parties are extremely relevant to the topic of this thread.

i'm tired of being dismissed as if my opinion is wrong or irrelevant just because certain people hate the concept it might be relevant to, and don't want it taking the "energy" away from the "important issues." i consider that statement as intentionally attempting to dismiss a relevant point purely to avoid possibly acknowledging the topic it is built around, even at the cost of making things worse for everyone involved.

that's fine if you disagree on the importance of the issues i'm presenting, but i believe they are important and disagree with you that they aren't.

also a pan individual : D

i agree with everything i've read here. very well put. i especially agree about the bad actors being antithetical to left wing and to being progressive as a concept. i hope to see them criticized as such more in the future.

like i said, i could easily frame a more aggressive criticism of people on the right. but i don't think it's misleading to state that this perspective is necessary. it is why i specified at the start that it may depend heavily on the specific community. there are billions of people forming their own groups floating around rather large and poorly defined concepts.

my personal experience has been one of violent and aggressive vitriol any time i've even suggested that attention go towards men. even the slightest nuance to a conversation being shut down with extreme of insulting claims. online and offline, i've been told directly that i shouldn't even be allowed to speak or have an opinion on anything related to gender or gender related issues, because of the body i was born into.

i don't think it's unreasonable to say that my overwhelming experience over the years has not shown contrary to the things i've stated here. if it isn't relevant in your life, perhaps i just had many unfortunate situations. i cannot ignore them, or the fact that they are generally excused almost every time they are brought up, usually with the reasoning that it's ok because of the direction of the action.

again, i know i'm not the only person with this experience, as i mentioned that one man killed himself because of the very thing i'm attempting to state. i don't think a critical view at the bad actors in our own spectrum of politics should be faux pas. i also don't think i should need ten miles of red tape around any mention of an issue that affects men or boys because i'm worried of being affiliated with people and opinions that i hate.

again, if that's not your experience, then that is fortunate for the area and people your experience revolves around.

i think my experience, even if it were the only one of its kind, should be enough to excuse saying "maybe just make sure you aren't doing the thing the people you criticize do, while using the same excuses they do."

because it is a thing that exists and has affected me personally, as well as people i've known and loved while growing up. a history of having my reality denied has made it difficult for me to not be adamant about it.

i don't think it's well defined, so it often depends on the whims of the people in charge of the specific instance, and whatever their personal intent is. i do hope many have much more inclusive and open environments than what my experiences lead me to believe. i just hope people figure out how to properly communicate on the subject before more escalations happen.

also think there should be more active research and work done about trends like media groups being created specifically to rile people up and polarize them, because rage material is good for the algorithm. it tends to flare up anger on both sides, and reduce constructive dialogue, as well as increasing extreme acts by the bad actors.

depends on what you're trying to address and where. i feel a large disconnect in experience is to blame for how it usually goes. have you ever seen a "conversation" about men's rights?

i'll first state that i consider myself fully and wholly "on the left." also that this is in the context of responding to the statement of "I feel like gender studies in particular doesn’t get much trouble from the left."

i could make a similar and probably much more aggressively fueled argument about the actions of the "right." as far as "creating trouble" goes.

i will also state that the larger dialogue around the issue is a shitshow that allows no nuance. why i made my earlier comment.

i will state that i don't align when "on the left" is supposed to mean "100% A-OK with inflammatory bigoted speech when it's directed at the 'bad ones' because it's only bad when they do it."

i have enough anecdotal experiences that would encourage me to emphasize this being an actual issue, even if you think it isn't. i know it affected me, and i'm sure many others have been affected in similar ways. given the diversity of people, some would react more aggressively experiencing the things that i have, and then being insulted, shut down, and insinuated as evil regardless of my actual actions or thoughts.

i think situations like op's article are brought on by that kind of experience, mixed with toxic media making up additional reasons to be angry or hate x/y group. assuming that even 10% of any populace has some dummies or assholes in it, we can expect some of them to find each-other and take it to another level of reactive hate and violence, which is where i assume people like op's example come from. these things are not helped when the topic can't even be approached without intensely aggressive feedback.

not everyone responds in violence. in my old province there was a guy who tried having a shelter for men in need. there were no others in the country at the time for men, despite the hundreds for women. he killed himself after years of public harassment and abuse, and feeling completely hopeless in just trying to help others in need. i myself have been sent graphic images about male mutilation purely for taking an egalitarian neutral stance when it comes to generally helping people, male specific problems included. doesn't matter how nuanced my opinions were.

if you never saw how toxic tumblr became before it died off, you are lucky not to see the worst of it. the bad actors on the left can definitely make themselves known. some just become terrible people. i've had a manager out of nowhere tell me she wouldn't have hired me if she was there from the start because she doesn't hire boys. i've had a coworker tell me about their plans to falsely accuse someone they knew of rape because she didn't like him.

terrible people are everywhere on every side. if you are convinced your side has no bad actors, no bigotry or evil, you are deluding yourself. again, i consider myself far left on the political spectrum, and i'm hated by both sides because i don't outright dismiss anything that isn't 100% alongside the popular narrative, even if the popular narrative directly denies my existence and experiences.

so i'm left quite hopeless and despondent.

CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org

i really wish things like gender studies had not been drowned in a sea of hate from both ends.

if you so much as defend the 'wrong group', you are already hated by both sides for being the purist evil.

you can't be egalitarian and thoughtful without being someone's enemy, and that hatred has been spurred on because anger and frustration lead to website clicks. some companies and media sites were created purely to stir up heated dialogue and get more people fighting on what should be obvious things.

it's funny, since i was a child i've been very thoroughly in the mindset of "don't judge, harm, or treat people differently for the body they were born into, which consenting human adults they share their intimacy with, or what they choose to do with their own body, as long as others aren't being harmed."

things get grey around "public decency," but anything generally applicable should be generally agreeable. for me, no public nudity is an example, but some communities would disagree with this, so you could get into debates about nuance.

that's not what happens though. if you say "hey, these people shouldn't be judged or abused or neglected for being born with/as ____" you will be the enemy to whomever considers "people born with/as ____" the enemy.

if you don't advocate for and defend the hatred, abuse, and ill treatment of said group, then you are pure evil to these people.

yes, this means the group you personally think is evil for whatever reason. they didn't choose the skin or society they were born into, and you have no honest understanding of how those traits or qualities have affected that person personally in their life.

people suck. i don't like dealing with people anymore.

How did we get here? Who could possibly tell which trends resulted in the rich getting most of the pie while the rest get less?

Maybe we failed to give enough tax cuts or bailouts to the rich? Maybe we didn't allow mega corporations to bully and buy out enough competition?

It's all so baffling. At least the biggest companies are getting record profits. It's a small comfort.

i mean, what's a more realistic solution? a small group that finds a high-tech development which can help us, or getting the majority of humanity to cooperate on what should be an obvious and necessary goal?

my bet's on the tech, at least with A.I. assisted research.

something has eroded my optimism towards the reliable and cooperative nature of our species. if we're putting our money on that, i consider us all doomed.

Think "shopping habits" already includes subconscious thoughts. Advertisers know when you will quit a brand before you do.

Title made me think this was a "sentient a.i." argument, but I'm glad to see it's not. human neuro rights is exactly what I think we need to be thinking about.

We also need a fix for established classes in society. Why have the smallest fraction of the population hoarded almost all of the benefits from humanity's advancements in the past 50 years? It's unconscionable.

not actually reading the article though, because i can't easily read it past the cookie confirmation.

Did people stop painting because we invented cameras? Mediums will still have their purpose, and more artists may learn how to strive alongside new tools to do things they never could before.

Ultimately we will have people able to naturally dictate entire world's and games and experiences to share, which they never could have accomplished alone.

It's like empowering smaller artists with Disney money, as long as we make sure the technology isn't exclusively held by closed proprietary systems. People keep praising adobe for their training data, but it's it worth it to make sure only Adobe can have the tool, and you need to pay them absurd subscription fees to use it?

Creators will still create. They will just be empowered in doing so to the extent of their imagination.

when i think of "prompt engineering" i think more of stuff like this paper

i'm still in the melanie mitchell school of thought. if we created an A.I. advanced enough to be an actual threat, it would need the analogous style of information processing that would allow machines to easily interpret instruction. there is no reasonable incentive for it to act outside of our instruction. don't anthropomorphise it with "innate desire to keep living even at the cost of humanity or anything else." we only have that due to evolution. i do not believe in the myth of stupid super-intelligence capable of being an existential threat.

Need a legal framework that ensures a likeness can only be used with a subscription fee.

I mean, we aren't allowed to own most of the stuff we buy now, should they be allowed to own us?

It's almost like we need an entirely new legal framework to ensure the non wealthy a standard of living while being continuously devalued over time by me technological developments. Artists already sell their souls to survive in this "market."

"Dr. David Ma, a professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Guelph, says a person weighing 70 kilograms would have to drink about 15 cans of diet pop a day to exceed that daily limit." And don't forget all of the studies about what sugar does to your body, which people always forget about while talking about aspartame. There will be a lot of people choosing sugar over aspartame because of these headlines.

But I thought the Mickey mouse protection act has only served to increase the diversity, well-being and development of artists everywhere!

Right?

Or is the reality that Disney and Warner can just buy all the art rights, sitting on those for the next hundred years in an endless cycle of power and wealth consolidation?

Nobody saw that coming at all.

Right?

I'm pretty sure the system has been severely skewed unfavorably for normal people.

It's comparing a bird to a plane, but I still think the process constitutes "learning," which may sound anthropomorphic to some, but I don't think we have a more accurate synonym. I think the plane is flying even if the wings aren't flapping and the plane doesn't do anything else birds do. I think LLMs, while different, reflect the subconscious aspect of human speech, and reflect the concept of learning from the data more than "copying" the data. It's not copying and selling content unless you count being prompted into repeating something it was trained on heavily enough for accurate verbatim reconstruction. To me, that's no more worrying than Disney being able to buy writers that have memorized some of their favorite material, and can reconstruct it on demand. If you ask your intern to reproduce something verbatim with the intent of selling it. I still don't think the training or "learning" were the issues.

To accurately address the differences, we probably need new language and ideals for the specific situations that arise in the building of neural nets, but I still consider much of the backlash completely removed from any understanding of what has been done with the "copywrited material."

I tend to view it thinking about naturally training these machines in the future with real world content. Should a neural net built to act in the real world be sued if an image of a coca-cola can was in the training data somewhere, and some of the machines end up being used to make cans for a competitor?

How many layers of abstraction, or how much mixture with other training data do you need to not consider that bit of information to be comparable to the crime of someone intentionally and directly creating an identical logo and product to sell?

Copyright laws already need an overhaul prior to a.i.

It's no coincidence that warner and Disney are so giant right now, and own so much of other people's ideas. That they have the money to control what ideas get funded or not. How long has Disney been dead? More than half a century. So why does his business own the rights of so many artists who came after?

I don't think the copywrite system is ready to handle the complexity of artificial minds at any stage, whether it is the pareidolic aspect of retrieving visual concepts of images in diffusion models, or the complex abilities that arise from current scale LLMs? which again, I believe are able to resemble the subconscious aspect of word predictions that exists in our minds

We can't even get people to confidently legislate a simple ethical issue like letting people have consensual relationships with the gender of their own choice. I don't have hope we can accurately adjust at each stage of development of a technology so complex we don't even have the language to properly describe the functioning. I just believe that limiting our future and important technology for such grotesquely misdirected egoism would be far more harmful than good

The greater focus should be in guaranteeing that technological or creative developments benefit the common people, not just the rich. This should have been the focus for the past half century. People refuse this conceptually because they've been convinced that any economic re-balancing is evil when it benefits the poor. Those with the ability to change anything are only incentivized to help themselves.

But everyone is just mad at the machine because "what if it learned from my property?"

I think the article even promotes Adobe as the ethical alternative. Congrats, you've limited the environment so that only the existing owners of everything can advance. I don't want to pay Adobe a subscription for the rest of my life for the right to create on par with more wealthy individuals. How is this helping the world or creation of art?

This is the thing I kept shouting when diffusion models took off. People are effectively saying "make it illegal for neural nets to learn from anything creative or productive anywhere in any way"

Because despite the differences in architecture, I think it is parallel.

If the intent and purpose of the tool was to make copies of the work in a way we would consider theft of done by a human, I would understand.

The same way there isn't any legal protection on neural nets learning from personal and abstract information to manipulate and predict or control the public, the intended function of the tool should make it illegal.

But people are too self focused and ignorant to riot enmass about that one.

The dialogue should also be in creating a safety net as more and more people lose value in the face of new technology.

But fuck any of that, what if an a.i. learned from a painting I made ten year ago, like every other artists who may have learned from it? Unforgivable.

I don't believe it's reproducing my art, even if asked to do so, and I don't think I'm entitled to anything.

Also copyright has been fucked for decades. It hasn't served the people since long before the Mickey mouse protection act.

I believe it will require a level and pace of informational processing that is far beyond what humans will accomplish alone. just having a system that can efficiently sift through the excess existing papers, and find correlations or contradictions would be amazing for development of new technology. if you are paying attention to any environmental sciences right now, it's terrifying in an extremely real and tangible way. we will not outpace the collapse without an intense increase in technological development.

if we bridge the gap of analogical comprehension in these systems, they could also start introducing or suggesting technologies that could help slow down or reverse the collapse. i think this is much more important than making sure sarah silverman doesn't have her work paraphrased.

Personally I find this stupid. If we have robots walking around, are they going to be sued every time they see something that's copywrited?

It's this what will stop progress that could save us from environmental collapse? That a robot could summarize your shitty comedy?

Copywrite is already a disgusting mess, and still nobody cares about models being created specifically to manipulate people en mass. "What if it learned from MY creations" asks every self obsessed egoist in the world.

Doesn't matter how many people this tech could save after another decade of development. Somebody think of the [lucky few artists that had the connections and luck to make a lot of money despite living in our soul crushing machine of a world]

All of the children growing up abused and in pain with no escape don't matter at all. People who are sick or starving or homeless do no matter. Making progress to save the world from immanent environmental disaster doesn't matter. Let Canada burn more and more every year. As long as copywrite is protected, all is well.