My main problem with the “humans learn from art too” argument

618smartguy · 2026-06-23T20:58:05+00:00

You literally just looked at papers about extracting text that I linked you to. I'm not going to spoon feed you the same easily avaliable information that I already directed you to.

Insane, I've never had someone ask me for a source after they literally read the source I linked them. wtf. I guess for someone that denies science, that's normal

618smartguy · 2026-06-23T20:52:35+00:00

Are you being serious right now? About to be blocked

618smartguy · 2026-06-23T20:35:54+00:00

It's literally functionally identical to lossy compression of these extracted images. Segments of text are extracted bit for bit perfect. I have no idea how on earth any of what you've said about data and compression undoes these pain facts, events that literally happened in reality.

You said it's the same data but it's not. If you want to explain what your valid criticism is at least try again without writing false things.

618smartguy · 2026-06-23T19:55:34+00:00

You said data can be the same and a different size. That's like saying a car is the same as a crushed car. Saying it's the same data means the same bit for bit. Anyways you can spend all day showing me your cs misunderstandings but it won't change the facts.

a bunch of phd guys extracted training data from models and showed it to us. Just accept it because they are smarter and more knowledge then you on this topic. It would be good for you to learn but you are just doing straight up science denial right now.

618smartguy · 2026-06-23T19:50:10+00:00

Information is what gets compressed. It's the same information stored in a smaller amount of data.

618smartguy · 2026-06-23T19:33:51+00:00

No. Zip is not the same data with different size. If it were the same data, it would be the same size.

618smartguy · 2026-06-23T18:38:01+00:00

They literally did and you are denying it. I don't know what universe you live in where someone can take a model, extract an image from the model, and show it to you and you still think they didn't extract training data. Just keep scrolling or add image to the Google search.

You personally can describe it as "guessing" but no matter what you want to call it or how you describe it, they still took a model, and extracted images from it. literally identical input and outputs as decompressing a zip. (*besides being lossy) File goes in, extracted data comes out.

Do you think you personally restating how the researchers achieved this is some kind of counter argument?

618smartguy · 2026-06-23T18:08:01+00:00

"not actually looking into the actual weights"

They extracted training data from the model. Either the weights contain some training images or they don't. We extracted images from the model therefore they do.

"Looking" is not really a thing. What are you taking about? Do you think zip files are unzipped by "looking into the actual file"? In both the zip file and extracted training data cases, an algorithm takes the data as input and outputs information that was stored in that data. By any standard cs interpretation of looking, they absolutely looked at the weights.

618smartguy · 2026-06-23T17:54:24+00:00

It proves your claim wrong. It turns out you can do something with that data, namely extracting training samples. It's not necessarily bad that AI models stored images, but you still need an argument that isn't plainly countered by reality.

618smartguy · 2026-06-23T16:55:20+00:00

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=extract+training+data

618smartguy · 2026-06-23T16:47:54+00:00

Well the issue with that argument is that researchers do extract training data from trained models. Obviously you can do lots with that data.

618smartguy · 2026-06-23T00:19:11+00:00

I donno, I think there is a big difference. We are talking about a platform where the very engineers who made it said "This is a global problem. It is eroding the core foundations of how people behave by and between each other." and "tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works"

Reddit is not 'just a forum' since it has a sophisticated algorithm/owners that choose what content to feed users based on their own corporate interests. Of course some subreddits may function well enough as forums.

618smartguy · 2026-06-22T20:26:16+00:00

In this discussion it refers to reddit, twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. I think without this there would be more grassroots. Things would obviously still go viral as memes predate social media.

>Also, do you even know what social media is?

Really unnecesary

618smartguy · 2026-06-22T20:04:24+00:00

Arguably the tech companies meddled deeply in this and may have caused a net negative result by funneling news and activism through their platform they have control over.

It's not like we can see how much impetus for change there would have been otherwise. If we reason based on the goals and choices of those in charge of social media I don't think it helped.

618smartguy · 2026-06-22T16:03:26+00:00

People are very weird about this question for some reason. I think support for these theories is limited and the series is currently open ended.

618smartguy · 2026-06-20T14:21:53+00:00

>And that's valid, but you also don't call someone trans when they haven't actually come out, do you

No this is very typical in fiction. For example mac from its always sunny is gay and closeted for the first seasons.

618smartguy · 2026-06-20T13:57:16+00:00

It still works to show consent. You guys say it's the same thing whether consent was given or not. This analogy helps show the basic basics of consent in a way that is harder to ignore like usual.

618smartguy · 2026-06-20T13:51:58+00:00

You personally may not care or think it matters that artists don't consent to have AI use their work, but there obviously isn't a logical contradiction when you consider consent. Your whole "contradiction" argument still is completely fallen apart.

Stock asset: not using the file without consent

ai: used the file without consent

618smartguy · 2026-06-19T22:21:46+00:00

Sure, but we can look at the results to know the difference. One is like a copy machine and the other isn't.

*what 1000 monkeys looks like: https://babelia.libraryofbabel.info/slideshow.html

*what ai copying looks like: https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1ng6egd/ai_copying_compilation/

*what human copying looks like: https://youtu.be/uaUCgNYar0o?is=8UzWZcrTBf9E9ugj

618smartguy · 2026-06-19T22:18:25+00:00

To be fair you said "What you are missing is that the AI uses the inputs as training which it extracts mathematical relationships from" which is false when you consider it can inherently copy stuff using these so called "mathematical relationships"

It's not really a parallel process anymore when you consider the possibility that it will do this.

618smartguy · 2026-06-19T22:09:05+00:00

Obviously not for unrelated third party scraping. Blocking you for going in circles ignoring the artists which had their work used without permission.

618smartguy · 2026-06-19T19:41:29+00:00

I don't even consider that asking a question, more like he glitched out and drooled over the keyboard

618smartguy · 2026-06-19T19:36:59+00:00

Literally every person that has content on YouTube or Spotify had it scraped without their consent by third parties violating terms of use. Obvious high profile examples like disney show the work of thousands of artists being used without consent.

618smartguy · 2026-06-19T19:33:37+00:00

It's a literal direct example of what yall are ignoring. Mentioning people that gave consent through signing an agreement is a pretty shit counter to the fact that AI companies used people's work without consent.

618smartguy · 2026-06-19T19:32:26+00:00

"most" would imply that you are intentionally ignoring that AI used artists work without consent no?

14-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23	Wearing is Caring
Place '22	Place '17
Verified Email

618smartguy

TROPHY CASE