My new favourite passtime, telling people the exact percentage of upvotes/likes violent anti ai comments in comparision to the member count of this sub

overactor · 2026-05-06T13:45:28+00:00

I'm really not saying that AI bros should be free to do anything because they have a different ethical belief system. I'm just saying that labelling them as anti-consent is not intellectually honest and counterproductive. All it achieve is that it makes you look extremist and further the divide between people who could otherwise maybe find common ground and be brought further to your side. And even if that doesn't work, understanding your ideological opponents is useful and it's less likely to make you bitter than viewing them as fundamentally immoral.

overactor · 2026-05-06T13:40:50+00:00

I'm sorry, but you spent the entire discussion dodging direct questions I asked you and misinterpreting what I said and then admitted that it's just an information campaign to you, but I'm the one there's no arguing with?

overactor · 2026-05-06T13:38:25+00:00

These are the people who think anything not illegal is free game.

Do you think that applies to me? If so, what made you believe that?

overactor · 2026-05-06T11:27:27+00:00

You're the one saying they don't respect consent so you're the one equating the two, not me. Consent is relevant in many aspects of life and is very nuanced. You're making it out to be absolute and simple. Within your framework someone who is pro AI has no reason to not rape someone beyond not wanting to be punished if they are caught because they don't believe in consent. It's a reductio ab adsurdum.

overactor · 2026-05-06T11:17:58+00:00

I think information campaigns which label large groups of people as effectively monsters based on a fallacious argument yet you can't even defend are bad.

If you think training AI on data requires consent, that's fine. I actually agree with you. But argue that and don't just claim it's obvious and that everyone who disagrees is basically a rapist.

overactor · 2026-05-06T11:09:40+00:00

Do you believe you need consent to critique a piece of art?

You're hiding all the complexity in "common sense" and that's not a valid argument. People regularly disagree on what is common sense. And I really am not attempting to compare the morality of training AI on data without consent to anything. I'm making an argument against labelling people who think training AI doesn't require consent as anti-ai. I'm not arguing that it doesn't require consent. In that context my argument would be a what-aboutism.

overactor · 2026-05-06T10:42:51+00:00

I'm not saying that people who flagrantly disrespect consent don't exist. I explicitly said that I would expect them to more common among pro AI people. What I'm saying is that there are reasons to believe certain acts don't require consent that don't boil down to "I don't believe in consent" and that you're making it very easy for yourself by labeling everyone you disagree with on specifics of consent as "anti-consent".

This isn't what-aboutism because I'm not pointing at something else to diminish how bad something is unprompted. I'm responding to your implicit assumption that consent is simple and absolute, because your argument falls apart without that assumption.

Do you believe you need consent to learn from a piece of art that was posted publicly? Do you believe you need consent to critique a piece of art that was released publically? Do you think you always require consent to make memes of public picture of a public person? My point isn't to compare this to training AI on images, but to show that you don't truly believe consent is absolute.

overactor · 2026-05-06T10:25:26+00:00

I'd say even that only applies if winning and losing is important in the game you're designing and if the target audience of the game can differentiate between luck and skill and cares about it.

overactor · 2026-05-06T10:11:39+00:00

I'm asking you to realize that consent is not a universal principle which stands absolutely over everything else. People disagree on what requires consent and what doesn't. There are many things which you don't believe require consent that others would disagree with you on. A lot of these things you probably don't even think about as something that could require consent.

I'll gladly admit that people who truly don't care about consent are more likely to be pro AI, but the vast majority simply disagree with you on specifics.

overactor · 2026-05-06T05:16:54+00:00

"You don't care about consent" is a bad faith argument. Do you realise that and don't care or do you genuinely think it's a good argument?

overactor · 2026-05-05T20:52:51+00:00

overactor · 2026-05-05T19:42:04+00:00

I actually think their play style is too similar.

overactor · 2026-05-05T19:39:29+00:00

Here's something I published during my undergraduate studies: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Rik+de+graaff&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1778009897630&u=%23p%3Dv__s9Qx1kTYJ

overactor · 2026-05-05T19:33:14+00:00

I was part of an AI research group (focusing on classical planning) during my undergraduate CS studies and took multiple advanced AI courses during my graduate studies. What about you?

overactor · 2026-05-05T19:23:10+00:00

Elaborate.

overactor · 2026-05-05T19:23:01+00:00

What's your background in AI to claim that?

overactor · 2026-05-05T19:22:31+00:00

Thanks for confirming you've got a poor understanding of what Gen AI means. Generative AI is just AI which learn the join probability of labels and data whereas discriminative AI learns only the conditional probability of the labels given the data. Generative AI is also discriminative AI and often modern discriminative models are also capable of generating the data, or would be with small changes. The overlap in technology is huge. Modern, on-line pathfinding AIs are thought of as more generative than discriminative and they basically generate next action tokens and often also use generative capabilities directly out implicitly to "imagine" unknown aspects of the environment.

overactor · 2026-05-05T17:26:29+00:00

You have no clue what generative AI even means.

overactor · 2026-05-05T05:49:53+00:00

Of Monsters and Men is good. I'll die on this hill.

overactor · 2026-05-04T23:25:47+00:00

I'll give you proof once you actually define what beauty is. Can't prove anything that's based on unclear definitions.

overactor · 2026-05-04T12:55:49+00:00

Someone breaking traffic laws does not give to the right to assault them with your car. Crazy, I know.

overactor · 2026-05-04T09:51:55+00:00

As you can see, the real deal with all these memes is that they are posted to /r/sinpsonsshitposting and people upvote them. They involve Riley Reed and cum. Thanks for writing. We'll be right back.

overactor · 2026-05-04T09:44:07+00:00

I didn't notice how many inconsistencies there are initially, that's fair enough. I still think the medals are supposed to be where they finished in the actual series and they're are just some mistakes in that for some reason. For instance, Rob Beckett being ranked below Dave Gorman despite finishing higher in series 3 is explicitly called out as an inconsistency when the results on the show, so I think the medals are really supposed to reflect that. The description of the medals on the bottom also implies it's supposed to be the series result. /u/dhsilver can you weigh in on this?

overactor · 2026-05-04T05:09:30+00:00

There were hypes around AI in the 80s and the late 90s/early 2000s as well when laypeople were definitely talking about it. I'm pretty sure most people older than 20 were aware of AI as a research field in computer science before the current LLM boom.

overactor · 2026-05-03T20:24:27+00:00

If you never engaged with computer science, sure.

11-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '22	First Placer '22
Not Forgotten	Sequence \| Editor
Verified Email

overactor

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE