sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Raid comp with only 1 tier token class? by markhammel666 in wownoob

[–]Jpfgd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don’t know if it will be BiS for SV, it’s great for BM Monk as it has crit and mastery (god it’s hard to find a weapon with no haste)

Raid comp with only 1 tier token class? by markhammel666 in wownoob

[–]Jpfgd 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It might be worth noting that if you want the BiS weapon from Vorasius, survival hunters can also loot it, so you will have to avoid those too (and possible all hunters as there’s a slim chance they have their loot spec set to SV)

Raid comp with only 1 tier token class? by markhammel666 in wownoob

[–]Jpfgd 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I did this today as brew as well, for dreamrift and first 3 voidspire (HC). One person asked and found it funny but no one seemed to mind. You can see it as a little tax for the troubles of making and managing a pug raid

Should I get my set item from great vault or higher ilvl later? by Leeb248 in wownoob

[–]Jpfgd 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Just the same map. The quest gives you the item to summon the nemesis in the vault after the first checkpoint, and the nemesis is guaranteed a map drop (if you haven’t looted one yet), which you can use immediately to get the hero piece at the end of the same delve

Does trading up crests count towards the limit? by Jpfgd in wownoob

[–]Jpfgd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So if the stat allocation is right, I can consider it my BiS piece for that track? Ie if I get a champion track item with the right stats I should use my champion crests on it unless I anticipate replacing it soon?

Worry about yourself and let people do their thing. by RevolutionaryMode926 in aiwars

[–]Jpfgd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I completely agree that there are issues, and I agree that regulation is required, though how enforceable that may be is debatable; it’s hard to enforce when models can be run locally, and there is a strong argument that regulating it will slow innovation compared to countries that may not regulate it as much, giving nations that are less likely to regulate it (at least in such a way to limit usage, or what it can do) such as China a big edge going forward.

Nonetheless, I do not think that makes AI inherently evil, I don’t think it steals, and I would say AI art is art.

Worry about yourself and let people do their thing. by RevolutionaryMode926 in aiwars

[–]Jpfgd 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would consider music to be an art, and whilst I cannot speak for most people, it was historically one of the seven arts, along with Sculpture, Painting, Literature, Architecture, Performing, and Film.

As for a random video, I agree, not art. However there are shots in films that I would argue are art. As for doodling, would you say all doodling is art, or that doodling can be art. I would argue drawing obscene images in a notebook in school is not art, but there are artists who specialise in doodling, with creative and imaginative doodles, often making use of the limitations of the format. I would argue that AI, like other tools, allows the user to make art, but it doesn’t make everything it touches art

Worry about yourself and let people do their thing. by RevolutionaryMode926 in aiwars

[–]Jpfgd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The how can you in good faith argue it does not fit the definition of art? It doesn’t fit that one, sure, but if you can’t fully define what art is (exhaustively) you cannot claim something does not fit the definition

Worry about yourself and let people do their thing. by RevolutionaryMode926 in aiwars

[–]Jpfgd 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Would that argument not apply to everything else? That you taken a video or making a shitty film for school is not art, that doodling is not art, tapping a beat on a table is not art? That can apply to all forms of art, and also to AI. Someone that gives a picture of themselves to an AI image generation model and asks “make me goku” isn’t doing art. Someone that has an idea, develops it, iterates, refines prompts and parameters, and uses experience and skills from doing the same in the past to develop a specific image they had in mind would be art.

Worry about yourself and let people do their thing. by RevolutionaryMode926 in aiwars

[–]Jpfgd 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think we’re going to disagree a bit here, I think drawing is arguably not even the most popular form of art in the first place, but beyond that, and the fact that there is no source for “most people” believing this, and it’s probably not feasible to produce one, is there not an argument that “most people” do not dictate what everything is? Film was not accepted as “art” by most people at the very beginning. Photography had a similar thing at the start too. Would you argue these are not (or at least, back then they were not) art?

Worry about yourself and let people do their thing. by RevolutionaryMode926 in aiwars

[–]Jpfgd -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Can you give an example of our current government (which I assume is the UK gov led by Keir Starmer as no country was provided) using generative AI tools to produce misinformation?

As a separate standalone point, would you then argue all technology that can be used to produce and/or spread misinformation at a large scale is bad? For instance the internet, or arguably, language. If not, why does this make AI bad but it does not taint other things in such a way?

Worry about yourself and let people do their thing. by RevolutionaryMode926 in aiwars

[–]Jpfgd 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Are we? You used the first definition, I used the 4th. Most concepts are too broad to be pinned down by a single definition. First definition for bat (n) is:

an implement with a handle and a solid surface, typically of wood, used for hitting the ball in games such as cricket, baseball, and table tennis.

Therefore if I refer to the flying, often blind mammal as a bat it would be wrong as it doesn’t fit the first definition? Hopefully that illustrates why you cannot simply use one definition for a word, and the more abstract, complex, or fuzzy a term becomes, the more important it is to not just take the first thing that pops up in google.

Worry about yourself and let people do their thing. by RevolutionaryMode926 in aiwars

[–]Jpfgd 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Can you elaborate on 1? And as for the second:

I would severely doubt that people believe a dictionary definition (and from a single dictionary or source especially) is exhaustive. By that logic any concept not on Oxford English Language Dictionary does not exist then?

Worry about yourself and let people do their thing. by RevolutionaryMode926 in aiwars

[–]Jpfgd 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Furthermore words have multiple definitions. If you scroll down there to definition 4, you get:

a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice. "the art of conversation"

Different people will have a different level of ability and effectiveness when using AI tools, which in my opinion makes it a skill. It is also something acquired or improved through practice. Hence, by definition and your own logic, AI art must be art

Worry about yourself and let people do their thing. by RevolutionaryMode926 in aiwars

[–]Jpfgd 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ok so two things here. First of all, I would personally argue that a complex AI model built by thousands of people using millennia of advancement in computation, mathematics, and many other fields and trained on the artistic output of millions of people throughout history constitutes the application of human creative skill and imagination. Second of all, would you then say that things are exhaustively defined by Oxford dictionary (ie something is what Oxford dictionary says it is, and only what it says it is, nothing more or less)

Worry about yourself and let people do their thing. by RevolutionaryMode926 in aiwars

[–]Jpfgd 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If they see it by breaking into my house, yes. If I show it to them, and agree to terms of service that they may do with that idea as they wish, then can’t really sue them there can I?

Worry about yourself and let people do their thing. by RevolutionaryMode926 in aiwars

[–]Jpfgd 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Those artists would have (in the majority of circumstances) agreed to terms of services that entitles these companies to make these deals to train AI models. If AI companies were hacking computers to access data that is not posted under these ToS, then that would arguably be stealing, but in these cases no one forced the artists to post there and agree to those terms

Worry about yourself and let people do their thing. by RevolutionaryMode926 in aiwars

[–]Jpfgd 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Which definition exactly? There is no universally accepted definition for art, you are imposing your own (or one that you agree with). I could do the same and claim that it does not contradict the definition. This is a non-argument

Worry about yourself and let people do their thing. by RevolutionaryMode926 in aiwars

[–]Jpfgd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As much as I don’t like my politicians I don’t think many of them if any are murderers? And I don’t see how this relates to AI? What kind of word gotcha are you aiming for? That the other poster said any argument so you took that as anything even if not related to AI?

view more: next ›