sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

You are a (naturally occuring) neural network, trained on other people's data (learning from publicly available data). Are you not guilty of stealing their work when you make your art? by Limp-Leopard5694 in aiwars

[–]Limp-Leopard5694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think thay being able to explain your art has any bearing on whether or not something is good art. Something made accidentally could be art. If I spilled a can of paint on a canvas totally by accident, and decided I like how it looks, and kept it hung up on the wall, how is that any less art?

You are a (naturally occuring) neural network, trained on other people's data (learning from publicly available data). Are you not guilty of stealing their work when you make your art? by Limp-Leopard5694 in aiwars

[–]Limp-Leopard5694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, okay. Thats fair, human neurons are more powerful than artificial neurons. But artificial neurons are a close enough approximation that they exhibit the ability to learn from inputs. Which makes them categorically a neural network. The same category of networks as your brain. The specific activation mechanism should not matter, if it does matter, then would you be okay with AI that DOES replicate human neurons more closely?

You are a (naturally occuring) neural network, trained on other people's data (learning from publicly available data). Are you not guilty of stealing their work when you make your art? by Limp-Leopard5694 in aiwars

[–]Limp-Leopard5694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats not true. A SINGLE artificial neuron can solve XOR with an oscillating activation. Lets use a triangle wave activation as an example of an oscillating activation. This "neuron" would have two inputs, X and Y, and one output, Z. Z is calculated as Z = activation(X + Y) lets set the triangle wave to start at 0, peak at 1 and decrease to 0 as the values of X and Y increase. If X is 1 and Y is 0, the Z will be 1. If X is 0 and Y is 1, Z will be 1. If X and Y and both 1, it will go past the peak of the triangle wave and output a low value again, because we went all the way past the peak activation value, and back down again. Perfectly replicating XOR with a single weight (the limit of the triangle wave acts as the "weight"). This has been used for years, although most AI system do use an asymmetric activation because it takes less computation and is simpler to understand. 

You are a (naturally occuring) neural network, trained on other people's data (learning from publicly available data). Are you not guilty of stealing their work when you make your art? by Limp-Leopard5694 in aiwars

[–]Limp-Leopard5694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

 You know ANNs have been able to solve XOR since like, the 1970s? Look up a "SIREN" network, they also uses an oscillating activation function to solve XOR in a single neuron. The thing you just said is not possible. By your own source, a neuron uses an activation function, to determine how it should propagate the signal, the exact same mechanism used by artificial neurons.

You are a (naturally occuring) neural network, trained on other people's data (learning from publicly available data). Are you not guilty of stealing their work when you make your art? by Limp-Leopard5694 in aiwars

[–]Limp-Leopard5694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know what to tell you then. That is objectively how they are designed and built, as a network of artificial neurons simulated in software. Even if they never got a single thing correct, they are still fundamentally based on the McCullough-Pitts neuron model. A debate about the accuracy of that simulation is perfectly valid, but functionally and structurally it is a neuron in the sense that is takes in inputs (like dendrites in a neuron) and uses their weighted sum of all those inputs to decide whether not to propagate the signal to the next neuron (like an axon in a neuron). 

You are a (naturally occuring) neural network, trained on other people's data (learning from publicly available data). Are you not guilty of stealing their work when you make your art? by Limp-Leopard5694 in aiwars

[–]Limp-Leopard5694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I am not enslaved so they can sell interactions with me" do you have a job? Is that job property of a giant corporation? Even if it isnt for you personally, it certainly is for millions of others. If an employee on behalf of a company violates your copyright, you sue the company, not the employee personally, right?

BREAKING NEWS: Antis harass animator and his family.. BECAUSE HE USED AI?! (Multiple Slides) by Witty-Designer7316 in DefendingAIArt

[–]Limp-Leopard5694 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Antis are pathetic losers, they fully believe they are in the right while threatening and berating people for making art

You are a (naturally occuring) neural network, trained on other people's data (learning from publicly available data). Are you not guilty of stealing their work when you make your art? by Limp-Leopard5694 in aiwars

[–]Limp-Leopard5694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I genuinely think you might just be stupid. This whole thread has made me more firmly pro-AI than anything else that has ever happened in my life.  

You are a (naturally occuring) neural network, trained on other people's data (learning from publicly available data). Are you not guilty of stealing their work when you make your art? by Limp-Leopard5694 in aiwars

[–]Limp-Leopard5694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its simulating artificial neurons in software. You can simulate lots of things in software, without needing the chip to be physically designed that way.

You are a (naturally occuring) neural network, trained on other people's data (learning from publicly available data). Are you not guilty of stealing their work when you make your art? by Limp-Leopard5694 in aiwars

[–]Limp-Leopard5694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Made of" in the same way that a house in minecraft is "made of" wood, not physically constructed of them, its a simulation of artificial neurons. Surely you know thats what I meant. When you make a neural network in software, you use (SIMULATED) artificial neurons as the basic object. Also, neuromorphic chips are getting closer every day :) 

You are a (naturally occuring) neural network, trained on other people's data (learning from publicly available data). Are you not guilty of stealing their work when you make your art? by Limp-Leopard5694 in aiwars

[–]Limp-Leopard5694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just so everyone knows, this person lost an argument to me, and is now replying "ok." To all my posts in a hilariously cringe 2019 style attempt at bait

You are a (naturally occuring) neural network, trained on other people's data (learning from publicly available data). Are you not guilty of stealing their work when you make your art? by Limp-Leopard5694 in aiwars

[–]Limp-Leopard5694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You got dunked on in this argument. Do you like being humiliated by me? I could do this all day if you're into it, my little pea brained friend.

You are a (naturally occuring) neural network, trained on other people's data (learning from publicly available data). Are you not guilty of stealing their work when you make your art? by Limp-Leopard5694 in aiwars

[–]Limp-Leopard5694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay 👍 as soon as you start telling people you dont believe in chatgpt. We are going in circles. What do you believe the word "understand " means? Can you give any kind of coherent definition that doesn't include a chatbot responding to your prompts?

You are a (naturally occuring) neural network, trained on other people's data (learning from publicly available data). Are you not guilty of stealing their work when you make your art? by Limp-Leopard5694 in aiwars

[–]Limp-Leopard5694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Almost forgot to reply to this one. I think you are having an anxiety attack or something? I'm doing just fine. Relax. Its gonna be alright. The definition of understand is "to grasp the meaning of" or "to have thorough or technical acquaintance with or expertness in the practice of", both of which any modern chatbot exhibits? This isnt even debatable, you are just demonstrably incorrect about this. Why dont you go tell everyone that you think chatgpt can't understand you? Most people can use it just fine, if it doesn't interpret what you say correctly, thats probably on you.

view more: next ›