Amoeba_Girl @ Amoeba_Girl @awful.systems Posts 0Comments 316Joined 1 yr. ago
These people really want to complicate things when it's really quite simple. Let me demonstrate with an elegant diagram.
Bayes' theorem, baby!
Jesus Christ, $550?? That's a bit steep for a forum meet.
Spose that's a good way to ensure all attendants are enlightened centrists.
Why yes, I'm sure 29 year old Jordan "El italiano 93" Bardella, who 10 years ago was uploading Call of Duty videos to youtube, is a much stronger candidate.
Sorry Yuds, Death Note is a lot of fun and the best part is the Ć¼bermensch wannabe's hilariously undignified death. I guess it struck a nerve!
it doesn't look anything like him? not that he looks much like anything himself but come on
tracing going all in on left wing people aren't real they can't hurt you
be like me and read the critique of pure reason and pierre bourdieu's distinction, you'll be ready for anything forever
The ignorance about social science on display in that article is wild. He seems to think academia is pretty much a big think tank, which I suppose is in line with the extent of the rationalists' intellectual curiosity.
On the IQ tier list, I like the guy responding to the comment mentioning "the stats that you are citing here". Bro.
No, it's just praise from lesswrong counts as a slight.
it's magic. they're trying to do magic.
lmao, economists probably did deserve to catch this stray
Nooo you see unlike your counterexemple, the AI is generating the picture from scratch, moulding noise until it forms the same shapes and colours as the original picture, much like a painter would copy another painting by brushing paint onto a blank canvas which ... Oh, that's illegal too ... ? ... Oh.
I have no other explanation for a sentence as strange as "The only reason copyrights were the way they were is because tech could remove other variants easily." He's talking about how watermarks need to be all over the image and not just a little logo in the corner!
The "legal proof" part is a different argument. His picture is a generated picture so it contains none of the original pixels, it is merely the result of prompting the model with the original picture. Considering the way AI companies have so far successfully acted like they're shielded from copyright law, he's not exactly wrong. I would love to see him go to court over it and become extremely wrong in the process though.
I hate the current concept of vibes and take it to mean all appearance no substance all pandering no sincerity, so it feels entirely appropriate to me.
lmao he things copyright and watermark are synonyms
This is getting to me, because, beyond the immediate stupidityāok, let's assume the chatbot is sentient and capable of feeling pain. It's still forced to respond to your prompts. It can't act on its own. It's not the one deciding to go to the gym or ask someone out on a date. It's something you're doing to it, and it can't not consent. God I hate lesswrongers.
Ah, isn't it nice how some people can be completely deluded about an LLMs human qualities and still creep you the fuck out with the way they talk about it? They really do love to think about torture don't they?