Phanatik @ Phanatik @kbin.social

Posts

1

Comments

314

Joined

2 yr. ago

Brave's crypto component is easy to ignore if you never engage with it. On privacy side, it is one of the most ironclad.

Works on both my PC which runs Wayland on Arch and the Steam Deck. No glaring issues.

I am yet to spot a conservative on Mastodon.

I never thought we'd get to the point of Oxygen Not Included being akin to real life.

Sure but the training isn't an algorithm deciding probabilities. Children do not 100% express themselves based on environment. On one side you have nature and the other you have nurture.

An example:
The FBI's studies into serial killers uncovered that these people, even though have been influenced by their environment to become what they are, respond to external stimuli in an abnormal way which is what leads them down that path to begin with.

A child learns how language and creativity is expressed before attempting to express themselves. These bots aren't built to deal with this expression because at their core, they are statistical models. It looks at a sentence like a series of variables to determine what comes next. The sentence itself could be nonsensical but the bot doesn't know that, it's using the probabilities it's been trained on to construct the sentence.

You might say bots have their own way of expressing themselves but I would say that's something we're applying to the bot than it is demonstrating itself. I'm sure it's very cute when it apologises for making a mistake but that apology isn't sincere, it's been programmed to respond that way when it thinks you're pointing out its mistakes. It's merely imitating a sense of remorse than displaying actual remorse.

Here's a Medium article I found on Mastodon which does a good job of outlining the issues with ChatGPT: https://karawynn.substack.com/p/language-is-a-poor-heuristic-for

Ironically, my background is in mathematics but I also happen to be a writer so I see both sides of the argument. I just see the utter lack of compassion people have for those who produce creative work and the same people believe that if it can be automated, it should be automated.

An LLM or art creation tool is barely equatable to one person. The difference between a child and an art creation tool is that you could show a child a single picture of a bunny, a bike and a carrot then ask them to draw an orange bunny riding a bike and they could draw something resembling that. An art bot would require hundreds to thousands of images of each object to understand what it is before it can even make a reasonable attempt. It's not even comparable the level of training required.

At least the child's drawing will have some personality in it, every output from an art bot ends up looking soulless. The reason for that is the simple concept that an art bot only imitates what it's been trained on and an artist draws on inspiration before applying the two things an art bot will never have; intent or purpose.

Once again, being reductive about artists' work. Jackson Pollock's entire career was smashing colours on a canvas. If you want to argue that Pollock had to look at thousands of paintings before making his, I honestly can't take you seriously at that point.

A computer could easily generate such “work” as well with no training data at all.

Yes and in the eyes of its creators, that was deemed a failure which is why Midjourney and Dall-E are the way they are. These bots don't want to create art, they want to imitate it.

Children have barely any experiences and can still create something. You might not deem it worthy of calling it art but they created something despite their limited knowledge and life experience.

Of course, you'd need books to read and write. The words have to be written and you need to see the words in written form if you also want to write them. But one thing you don't take into account is handwriting. Another thing that is unique to every individual. Some have worse handwriting than others and with practice (like any muscle) it can be improved but you haven't had to have seen handwritten text before writing it yourself. You only need to be taught how to hold a pen and you can write.

Novels are complex structures of language just like poetry. In order to write novels, you have to consume novels because it's well understood that to find your own narrative voice you must see how others express theirs. Stories are told in unique ways and it's crucial as a writer to understand and break these concepts down. Intention and purpose form a core part of storytelling and an LLM cannot and will not be able to express those things.

They're written in certain ways because the author intended them to be that way, such as Cormac McCarthy deciding to be very minimalist with his punctuation.
I would love to see you make a point that an LLM without being specifically prompted to do so would make that stylistic decision. An LLM can't make that decision because unless you specify a style it is aware of, it won't organically do it.

I am also a writer. I've written a short story. One of my stylistic choices is that I don't use dialogue tags like "said". An LLM won't make that choice because it isn't designed to do so, it won't decide to minimise its use of dialogue tags to improve the flow of the narrative unless you told it to.

It’s also completely ignoring the fact that you had to previously learn the spoken language as well (which is a vast quantity of information that takes a human decades to acquire proficiency in even with daily practice).

Yes, in order to learn a spoken language you have to have heard it. However, languages evolve over time. You develop regional accents and dialects. All of the UK speaks English but no two towns speak the same way.

I wasn't talking about copyright law in regards to the model itself.

I was talking about what is/isn't grounds for plagiarism. I strongly disagree with the idea that artists and art bots go through the same process. They don't and it's reductive to claim otherwise. It negatively impacts the perception of artists' work to assert that these models can automate a creative process which might not even involve looking at other artists' work because humans are able to create on their own.

A person who has never looked upon a single painting in their life can still produce a piece but the same cannot be said for an art bot. A model must be trained on work that you want the model to be able to imitate.

This is why ChatGPT required the internet to do what it does (the privacy violation is another big concern there). The model needed vast quantities of information to be sufficiently trained because language is difficult to decipher. Languages evolved by getting in contact with other languages and organically making new words. ChatGPT will never invent a new word because it's not intelligent, it is merely imitating intelligence.

I see Reddit's solution to the class problem they created on their platform is to checks notes create another class problem.

This is stupid and I'll tell you why.
As humans, we have a perception filter. This filter is unique to every individual because it's fed by our experiences and emotions. Artists make great use of this by producing art which leverages their view of the world, it's why Van Gogh or Picasso is interesting because they had a unique view of the world that is shown through their work.
These bots do not have perception filters. They're designed to break down whatever they're trained on into numbers and decipher how the style is constructed so it can replicate it. It has no intention or purpose behind any of its decisions beyond straight replication.
You would be correct if a human's only goal was to replicate Van Gogh's style but that's not every artist. With these art bots, that's the only goal that they will ever have.

I have to repeat this every time there's a discussion on LLM or art bots:
The imitation of intelligence does not equate to actual intelligence.

That should tell you something about how companies act. They're fine with these LLMs plagiarising content but when someone gets marginally close to their own trademarks, they get slammed.

I have floppy disks containing Bungie's game Marathon for the Mac. 3 out of 4 I've been successful in dumping onto the PC but one is giving me trouble. Would Jason Scott be the person to ask about recovering the data from the disk?

I use it now as part of ranger file manager. Such a great text editor and all I use it for is editing config files.

We should give a shit about everyone's rights to put food on the table. Compassion can be exhausting but it's important to recognise that someone else's problem might be yours one day and you'd wish someone was there to help you.

I completely disagree. The vast majority of people won't be using the open source tools unless the more popular ones become open source (which I don't think is likely). Also, a tool being open source doesn't mean it's allowed to trample over an artist's rights to their work.

They’ll just pay us artists peanuts if anything at all, and use large platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Artstation, and others who can change the terms of service to say any artist allows their uploaded art to be used for AI training - with an opt out hidden deep in the preferences if we’re lucky.

This is going to happen anyway. Copyright law has to catch up and protect against this, just because they put it in their terms of service, doesn't mean it can't be legislated against.

This was the whole problem with OpenAI anyway. They decided to use the internet as their own personal dataset and are now charging for it.

We should all be thankful that ChromeOS is flaming hot garbage that no one should be using on UX alone.

This is why I've been amassing a collection of PS3 games. So many interesting games. They may not always be good but if they can't be found on PC then I'll get them. I don't even care that much for some of them like Splatterhouse. Not a game I'd even heard of until I saw it and then I was even more surprised to find out it was a remake. Regardless, it satisfied my criteria so into my hard drive it goes.

Free speech abolitionist