Machine Learning, GenAI, And Our Communities
𝕛𝕨𝕞-𝕕𝕖𝕧 @ jwmgregory @lemmy.dbzer0.com Posts 3Comments 136Joined 2 yr. ago
𝕛𝕨𝕞-𝕕𝕖𝕧 @ jwmgregory @lemmy.dbzer0.com
Posts
3
Comments
136
Joined
2 yr. ago
First I just want to quickly say thank you for cultivating this community and culture. This space is invaluable and your work means more than I could express.
In response to your actual comment, I am supportive of this feature and the rationale behind it but I don't believe it is going to be the end-all-be-all solution to the issue described. The fault with regulation in that form is that it will only be enforceable on honest people, and honest people are not the problem here. For example, what happens when generative art is uploaded with the express intent of passing as human art and subverting the tagging system? Anti-AI people would see this as deceptive and outrageous. Or, what happens when legitimate human art is accused of being generated? We have seen that in the recent past, similar situations have culminated in outright witch-hunts, harassment, and bullying.
I don't intend to be a contrarian, but, I believe this is a more complex trust issue than is easily able to be regulated. I don't know what the answer is here and I don't come intending to come off as implying that. A large swath of people seem to truly believe that it matters who made a piece of art in a way that isn't just analytical; the author hasn't yet died. Regardless of how misguided someone like you or I might find this view, how promulgated it is in the social conscious is undeniable. If there truly becomes no reasonable way to discern art created by a natural or artificial intelligence then how do you deliver people's impossible desire to know that themselves?
the angles are interior if you go into the scary world of high level maths and their weird fucking geometries.
this is a square, from a certain point of view
I think it's kind of ironic you call your friend apparently a dipshit for not knowing something you also didn't know... pot calling the kettle black & all.
no lmao.
surprisingly hot take these days but I prefer critical analysis to being an emotional reactionary.
i suppose that's just "cringe' tho, isn't it?
yeah let’s let elon elope to one of our most significant international rivals after letting him plunder virtually every datapoint owned by the federal government. i look forward to the russian bot farms becoming personalized down to the individual.
i mean no offense but are you guys that are cheering for this fucking stupid? do you just read stuff and respond based on how it makes you feel?
or maybe it is uncanny because there are beans the size of boulders??
smh. “result of the uncanny AI effect.” talking about image generation like it’s some sort of magic taint that pervades the image. i’ll go draw large beans myself just to point out how fucking absurd what you’re saying is, brb.
I'm personally scared for what the future holds, we are living in a post-Enlightenment society.
At the risk of sounding a little chud-y... we are tasked with the same challenge people like Newton or Spinoza dealt with in life; we need to rebuild meaning, reason, and thought from first principles in a way that is amicable to the modern order.
People, like those that we're seeing in action here, probably think Modest Proposal is actually encouraging the audience to eat children. It's a serious problem.
of course he means it literally?
that’s why i think, as i said, his comment is reductionist. the key word is
I think the only bad thing…
he’s just trying to draw an edgy hyperbolic narrative that the world only cares about the Holocaust in particular not because it is a genocide but because it threatened the international status quo. he’s wrong, but he’s not a nazi, at least as far as i can tell from his singular comment. i won’t come up to bat for the original commenter, he very well could be a bigot or a nazi. i don’t have enough context to know as a reader. his use of leftist diction and the way he wields it is a pretty strong indicator that this was his intended thesis, on top of obvious contextual clues.
man fuck idek what else to say. your response here is purely reactionary, you aren’t even saying anything other than reaffirming things you’ve already said.
i don’t agree with the original comment bc it is pessimistic reductionism but i think you and the people dogging on it severely lack media literacy and critical thinking skills, as kindly as that can be stated.
in what way is the former reading more likely than the latter??
you need to make far more assumptions about the original comment and commenter to come to the conclusion that he made the comment out of some weird bigoted malice than to just accept the obvious reading of it being a commentary on global society’s attitudes towards various genocides.
jesus fucking christ i see this shit all over the internet and it is why our society is collapsing. just droves of people behaving and thinking in ways that would fucking abhor a literature teacher from even just a decade ago.
i just give up after a couple of minutes if it isn’t somewhere obvious and then search my whole system with grep lmao.
how wonderful to live in a world where compute is so cheap.
israeli zionists are looking at themselves objectively, they just don’t care. they’re literal neonazis, they think it is good what they are doing and saying.
everyone is rightfully shocked the descendants of the victims of the holocaust would go on to perpetrate their own genocide but it makes perfect sense to me. the west took these freshly minted holocaust victims and threw them carelessly into palestine as colonizers and declared the solution good enough. becoming homesteaders and colonizers was a poor substitution for therapy and healing of communities.
inb4 “yOu rEAlLy thINk a LiTtLe thERApY wOUldvE mAde anY DIfFerEnce??”
yes. yes i do, and that is a disingenuous interpretation of what i am saying anyway.
what do children raised in tumultuous environments do? they fall victim to the cycle of abuse and typically go on to perpetuate the cycle further as adults…
it seems like a generated image possibly which is why the subtle styling is inconsistent (not that it matters).
i don’t hate the non-shadow vs shadow effect tho… maybe just windows could be shadowed? or maybe the shadow could be like ellipses and indicate that something opens a dialog/new thing instead of a single file?
none of these are particularly strong indicators that the art is ai… they feel more like stylistic choices. nintendo just like, uses a cartoonish & unrealistic styling?? i could 100% see this being generated or drawn. that’s like, the point of generative image tech…
regardless, why do you care? we’re sitting here debating whether or not the art is generated ffs; it is clearly good enough to pass as human art regardless of your subjective opinions
are you guys scared the spoopy ai is gonna jump out and get you or something?? i like, seriously don’t get the hysterics here beyond weird moral posturing.
the computer isn’t in the electricity…
additionally not everyone considers to backup the actual software used to compress/decompress the data. that isn’t permanent either and could disappear as well, same as wikipedia rendering such backups useless.
granted, it’s like, 10000x less likely than the already unlikely event of wikipedia being raptured. but the datahoarder mindset is better safe than sorry…
i mean, imho: if you think ~400 words of text constitutes a "wall of text," then i think you're functionally illiterate. but that's just my take.
you're right to point to that hole in my rhetoric.
truthfully, it is a number i remember seeing widely cited while researching the topic years ago and i don't have an immediate source to offer you. it largely comes out of studies around the late 80s through the early 00s; and it comes, for the most part, from studies that focused on narrow, immediate groups. think asking students currently taking or freshly out of a course about integrity. more recent research in this field shows that over a lifetime the vast majority of people engage in academically dishonest behaviors at least once and the research tends to focus on that, which is why you tend to see very high numbers reported: they have the caveat of the scope being expanded to lifetimes or careers rather than more momentary snapshots. because basically everyone has done it at some point, statistically speaking. maybe try looking for modern research focusing on serial cheating. those numbers tend to be more in line with the older figures i mention. whether or not that is ethically/statistically significant or not is up to the reader, obviously. i think it is a shift in methodology that looks at flashier and bigger percentages for dubious reasons, personally.
i will make an effort to find you specific sources when i get some time either today or tomorrow but for now you can likely find many of these figures cited by searching for the journal of academic ethics using ERIC, focusing on earlier sources to find the methodology behind the mythical "25-35%" idea. you will also see more modern research that paints a general picture showing academic integrity is more a systemic issue than an individual moral failing, which seems to be scholarly consensus at this point although I won't make that claim outright because it isn't my field. i admire you wanting to seek out sources and verify information, sorry if i wasn't helpful enough in the immediate now! i will either edit this comment or make a new one so you get the ping once i find specific sources to share to help your research. for now, i hope the ERIC query i provided is a good enough jumping off point.
the problem with your response isn't that you used AI, it's that you attempt to use it in place of your own agency and intellectual ability instead of as a supplement to it.
correct me if i'm wrong but it seems like the idea here is that you want me to point out how clearly piss-poor your response is and then flip it back on me to say "HA you're a HYPOCRITE!! SEE! AI IS BAAAaaaaAAaDDDdD!!!!"
students in the 2000s copying and pasting things mindlessly into Google and thoughtlessly regurgitating strings they find online were engaging in genuine academically dishonest behavior. that isn't because search engines are bad though, plenty of people used Google honestly, and I think anyone with a fucking brain can see that. so, why then, do people wanna make the same stupid-ass argument when it comes to AI? are you so fucking swept up in the zeitgeist as to not see your own hypocrisy?
like I said, all straw and no fucking man is what you people are.
and, if I am misreading your intentions here, which is assuredly possible... then I refer back to my initial statement in this reply.
yeah, and that should horrify you: because Western anti-AI hysteria is deeply rooted in a fascist cultural obsession with “ownership” of thoughts and ideas.
who the fuck cares if you used an AI tool to do work?
a decently designed course in academia won’t be something you can just “cheat” on. there’s this implication that the behavior is somehow the responsibility of the student body, so much so they should be punished for it; when there is no accountability for the professors and educators who actually design a shit-ass curriculum that makes students engage in these behaviors rather than actually learning. students are the victims here, not academia. academic dishonesty policies assume there is some massive contingent of students trying to “cheat the system” at all times and thus we must rabidly defend academia from it, as if she is some virgin maid. that isn’t true. the vast majority of students do not cheat. self-reported rates of cheating remain at a constant 25-35% of the student body over large periods of time. why? because it’s a myth. there aren’t large numbers of people trying to “defraud” academia. sure, it happens, but is it enough to justify the many more lives that are ruined by frivolous accusations?
i would cite case studies but literally it is so fucking common just google search and take your pick for whatever story tickles your exact rhetorical mindset.
and no, i’m not some “cheater” myself trying to defend academic dishonesty. i’ve played by the rules my entire academic career and im not gonna sit and be strawmanned bc i happen to notice the absolutely fucking egregious grifts and power imbalances that compose the modern academy. these people will charge you hundreds of thousands of dollars and then treat you worse than a fucking minimum wage mcdonald’s employee might treat the customers. it’s absolutely fucked in every way, they are enemies to education and human knowledge. education is important, knowledge should be FREE for everyone no matter what!
you should be pissed that these people masquerade as intellectuals when they’re nothing more than cowards trying to steal opportunity from the youth. it is not the place of the teacher to be the arbiter of discipline, that is the most heinous misreading of pedagogical principles and the fact that it has been allowed to go on for so long is a large part of why we sit here at the precipice of a new mass genocide, with thousands of ignorant fools clamoring it on or being willfully blind to it happening.
this is actually a pretty based take imo but I wonder - under what authority does that FAQ get organized? how do we decide what ideas, rhetoric, and points actually get to go in there versus what is so egregious as to be unamicable to one or both sides of this "debate"?
i like the premise, it seems like a promising direction, but am just thinking about the actual implementation of it practically speaking, i suppose.