flora_explora @ flora_explora @beehaw.org

Posts

2

Comments

627

Joined

2 yr. ago

There are also English versions on the website for anyone who is also trying to figure out the details ;)

https://www.kyoto-aquarium.com/sokanzu/en/2024/

It's a lot of fun to look through and very interesting. Thanks OP!

Apart from all the important critique: "...creating a beautiful and modern decorative piece" Seriously? It's commenting about what you need to find nice?

You seem to have learnt nothing from history and how fascism manifests itself. Adderaline had many good points but you just don't want to actually respond to them? There are so many rightwing, fascistic parties in various countries that already use the rhetoric of panels 1-3. And now society debates if e.g. trans people should be allowed to exist or not, if immigrants should be deported or not, if racism is actually a thing or not. We need to define a line where we will not tolerate further discussions. Because if we allow any form of discussion on certain topics, we will again and again get to the point where we argue about someone's right to exist. And this will result in panel 4. I'm glad for you that you don't seem to be affected by this. But please listen to people who are. It is very very frightening if people are publicly debating if they should consider you a valuable human being or not. And even more so as right wing and fascist politics are gaining more traction worldwide.

Thanks! Ever tried it out yourself?

I guess because the author is actually mostly playing small games on android: "Admittedly, I am not much of a gamer, and never have been."

Good on android are also unciv, feudal tactics, beat feat and flowit!

Not Foss, but free without ads or trackers FOSS and my all-time favorite is "Simon Tatham's Puzzles". This is so addicting I go through a cycle of playing it obsessively until I have to delete it and wait a few months until installing it again xD

ETA: thanks for providing the sources. Couldn't find it on fdroid because of the different name :)

Oh, OK. Yeah, I understand now why the other person got defensive. I obviously also get your anger at US people. But why would you then throw "civilised people" around? Imo this reinforces colonialist viewpoints of civilised vs uncivilised people.

ETA: oh wow, scrolling through your recent posts you seem to have a lot of oppressive and conservative opinions.

Well, being ignored and seen as unimportant often causes anger. I get that, too.

The phrasing of "more civilised places" in the comment you mention seems highly problematic to me, yes. I think the "stupid Americans" is your biased interpretation though.

Oh, btw I wouldn't call people from the USA "Americans", because it is just one of many countries in the Americas. Another blind spot in the US perspective.

I guess it adds to the problem that it's very context specific. When you are in your country talking in your mothertongue with someone, you would probably only say "the south" to refer to the south of your country (or another by society predefined south).

And while we are on a mostly English-speaking platform inhabitated by mostly US people, I've heard US people throwing around US specific terms in a lot of different contexts/countries without checking the context they are in.

I think that was a stab at you saying "living in the south" as if it automatically meant south of the USA. So your US-centric world view shines through. I think no one wanted to attack your world view per se, but rather your bias.

And regarding your second comment, why so passive-aggressive? Obviously the US lives in everyone's head rent free because it messes around with the whole world. Don't get offended by people trying to point out that there is more in the world than one single country.

If you were really curious about the answer, you practically gave yourself the right search term there: "racial bias in general purpose LLM" and you'll find answers.

However, like your question is phrased, you just seem to be trolling (= secretly disagreeing and pretending to wanting to know, just to then object).

Yes. But this would probably cause friction with the overall public, as the AI would then give a full range of human traits, but people would still expect very narrow default outputs. And thinking more about it, what is the full range of human traits anyways? Does such a thing exist? Can we access it? Like, if we only looked at the societies the AI is present in, we still don't get all the people to actually be documented for AI to be trained upon. That's partially the cause for the racist bias of AI in the first place, isn't it? Because white cishet ablebodied people are proportionally much more frequently depicted in media.

If you gave the AI a prompt, e.g. "a man with a hat". What would you expect a good AI to produce? You have a myriad of choices to make and a machine, i.e. the AI, will not be able to make all these choices by itself. Will the result be a black person? Visibly queer or trans? In a wheelchair?

I guess the problem really is, there is no default output for anything. But when people draw something then they so have a default option ready in their mind because of societal biases and personal experiences. So I would probably draw a white cishet man with a boring hat if I were to execute that prompt. Because I'm unfortunately heavily biased, like we all are. And an AI, based on our biases, would draw the same.

But repeating the question from before, what would we expect a "fair" and "neutral" AI to draw? This is really tricky. In the meantime your solution is probably good, i.e. training the AI with more diverse data.

(Oh and I ignored the whole celebrity or known people thingy, your solution is definitely the way to go.)

I'm sorry if my comment sounded rude. Reading through your comments again, I cannot say that you were blindly ranting. However, what frustrated me was the complete rejection of a new technology you seem to propose. I think we do agree on many/most layers, I just want to preserve complexity in this discussion. I disagree that machines/AI are inherently bad and we should boycott it. I agree that how AI is implemented in our capitalist society will exacerbate and cause many problems. (But it will also fix many.)

Just be careful not to project too much onto nature. The layman's idea of nature is pretty heavily biased because of our assumptions (and this obviously can be very different depending on the input culture). There is a strong dualism of culture vs nature and most of our idea of nature is produced in differentiation to our culture. For example, when people see human industrial technology as evil, nature is suddenly natural, chemical-free, mother earth, in harmony, sustainable, etc. But neither technology inherently evil nor nature inherently sustainable or better. Natural systems break down all the time. I would think that for a system of limited ressources sustainability would need some sort of planning capacity?

I strongly disagree with most of what you said. Especially Marvel productions to me seem to be terrible movies, or as I said, lifeless and boring. That was the whole point of my comment, i.e. that more and better technology won't automatically make movies better, but that you need a certain creative element in there (that so far, only humans can come up with). Big productions already lost most of this human, creative touch. Most characters/stories are pretty one-dimensional, acting is boring because actors are mainly chosen by reputation, etc. My last sentence referred to indie productions then combining this new technology with a more creative approach.

I saw a video the other day about how the movie culture has shifted to extensively using greenscreens instead of real world locations. And then just editing everything in afterwards, doing all the cuts in the studio etc. This obviously has altered how big movie productions are made and I imagine shifting to AI instead of real actors would exacerbate this trend by a lot. To me, big movie productions already feel lifeless and boring (most of the heavy lifting solely done by reputation the cast or director). I guess this will get worse. But then, I'm also curious what crazy ideas indie producers come up with.

I would argue that you could still use the voice/face of real people, as long as you add a disclaimer that it's not real people. Obviously big producers will use AI to cut costs. But the problem does not inherently lie in real actors vs AI. It lies in our capitalistic system not caring about people.

Maybe instead of just blindly ranting about a new technology we should focus on what's important: the quality of the end product. Do we enjoy movies by real actors or by AI? Like, having some celebrities in place who are doing the acting is also a construct of society. We should be able to adapt and see what's beneficial to us all. Well, although not really possible because capitalism doesn't care about what people need or want. Who gets to be an well paid actor and who doesn't is already a fucked up system deeply rooted in capitalism. I don't care about the Attenboroughs or Bruce Willis' of the world (to be clear: extraordinarily well paid people). I care about art that resonates with people and that gives us joy.

But isn't Attenborough's narration dependent on much more than what you can get from a few seconds? I imagine that you would also want to get the same narration style, e.g. how his voice/intonation relates to what's happening etc.