apotheotic (she/her) @ apotheotic @beehaw.org

![](https://beehaw.org/pictrs/image/3fed4f13-2d41-4cd4-a120-b778377ac818.we

---

Read more

Posts

4

Comments

998

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yeah, my pi sips energy very sparingly. Even an old laptop is going to be drawing more just to power itself, never mind what I run on it.

That said, pis are a poor value proposition nowadays and there are better options for the same use case

I must say, missing the opportunity for "CO-mpass" is devastating.

This prompted me to look at my own stats, not a big poster but damn 1.69k (nice) comments. I wasn't expecting it to be as high.

No, we elect them as president

Let's address the issue of fishing, by having everyone go plant based. Give some transitionary period so that the infrastructure keeps up. Suddenly, we are putting out far less greenhouse emissions and have loads more land and resources available to tackle other issues, because plant based diets use a fraction of the land and resources to support, and generate far lower emissions.

The climate situation stops enshittening at the rate it is, and we can allocate the freed up resources and land to "more important" issues, like (directly back into) climate change, homelessness, and world hunger.

We save fish and cows and chickens and pigs and etc from living tortured lives (yes, there will be a massive drop in livestock population as we stop breeding them to live in factories).

I love animals. I love people. This is a false dichotomy.

Source? All I've seen from them recently is going in harder on AI

"I guess it wasn't a safe space for autistic people" is an insane takeaway from being temp banned for talking about people fucking their mothers and how people downvoting you arouses you (on a thread about not using a right wing hate symbol).

As an autistic person I'm baffled you'd try to hide behind your neurodivergence here.

"We are pivoting harder into AI and as such detecting AI content is against our business model"

Good first step! Can we remove all the anti-human bullshit that we've put everywhere too?

Woman here with a penis and hands:

It could be good? It seems to be vibrating, which my hands can't do and I enjoy from my sex toys. Then the obvious in and out motion, as long as everything is lubricated, seems pleasurable too. Idk if you'd be able to use lube for a sperm donation though, I was told not to when I was getting my swimmers frozen. Maybe it'd be fine without lube though, if its somewhat flexy and not too tight.

Hope this helps.

Fourth thing to remember:

If your party suffers an avoidable TPK once, they won't do it again

But its so fun and funny to sexualise the children's cartoon, guys

Did you know-

Vaporeon looking-ass slug

I don't agree with this argument at all, because if a human artist were to employ the same kind of algorithmic mimicry that an AI does, I would consider it plagiarism. There is a distinct difference between how a human observes and learns from other artists work, and how an AI does it.

Moreover, to take things out of the realm of plagiarism, if a human artist was mimicking the style of another artist and making bank off of it, and the original artist were to say "hey, that's kinda not cool, I don't appreciate this" you could have a conversation about how to accommodate both parties. With AI, there is no such conversation to be had, because it will replicate without barriers and do so in volumes that dwarf any sort of output the original artist could dream of, no matter how nicely you ask it not to, unless it was not trained on it in the first place.

Anyway, my pushback in my original message was not about the output being plagiarism or anything of the sort, it was about the usage of authors/artists work as training data (input) being non-consensual.

I don't disagree that its a misstep, but it feels like one that is not going to be corrected. It is going to be treated as the normal thing to do with training AI.

I would hazard that there wouldn't be nearly as many artists complaining about AI if it hadn't been trained on immorally obtained inputs. The fact that it can effortlessly recreate the style of an artist that was added to the data without their consent is, I think, what gives most artists the visceral reaction that they have. "Not only is it doing what we can do (to some degree), it is doing so because our work was used without our consent".

AI is a valuable tool for art if used correctly, I don't know if I agree that it is a disability aid. I can perhaps concede that someone who is entirely without fine motor ability can now make colours and shapes that vaguely resemble what they had in mind where perhaps they couldn't before, but its difficult for me to consider that case "creating". It is creating in the same sense as describing to your friend what you want and them trying to draw what you describe. There's an output that resembles your input description, which might be enough for some?

Like, I get that there's people who are mocking AI for the wrong reasons, and they're silly for that, but there are very real reasons to dislike AI in many applications.

Would chatgpt be able to do this if their dataset had consisted only of ethically obtained data where the authors had provided consent? My money is on no, at least not yet. The technology is in its infancy and has powerful potential, but is having its progress boosted through highly unethical means.

I'm so very much for the concept of AI, its a monumental technology space at its core. But it needs to be done right, and I fear that it never will be, and we will have to live with the sins of the existing models forever. I hope I will be wrong.

If we can reach a future where models are trained on entirely consensual data and the environmental impact of their training and usage isn't as dire, I'd be so happy.

Hey, no! How about we treat people in our prison system like people we are trying to rehabilitate hmm?

Wholesome

Also

Smash