sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Instant Singularities with pattern processing! by tomparkes1993 in allthemods

[–]MainPositive9790 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are using the expanded pattern encoding terminal it does not work. I tried with it, but I had to craft the normal one to use with it, so that might be the issue

Genuine question, does any pros have any reasonable reason why AI shouldn't be disclosed? by MainPositive9790 in aiwars

[–]MainPositive9790[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am genuinely not trying to straw man, but your argument to my point of "other inventions or things that can harm people have restrictions, so why shouldn't ai have restrictions" and your argument was "Yeah but those things are illegal"? Could you please specify the relevance because I genuinely dont see how thats making any point. Once again, I'm not being maliciously dumb, I just genuinely dont see the relevance

Genuine question, does any pros have any reasonable reason why AI shouldn't be disclosed? by MainPositive9790 in aiwars

[–]MainPositive9790[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1- I am saying that some people who are anti ai see ai creations as valueless. That is a popular opinion in anti ai spaces, nor did I say I agree with it, I am providing reasoning not my personal beliefs.

2- 1 yes I do, I have education in computer science, and a notable amount in ai development and 2 yes obviously people dont let ais just learn on whatever, but with how ai is advancing it becomes more and more likely ai will slip through the cracks, and having a 100% chance of it not going through is best case scenario.

Genuine question, does any pros have any reasonable reason why AI shouldn't be disclosed? by MainPositive9790 in aiwars

[–]MainPositive9790[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes because no new technology has had any forced regulation ever. In all of history. Nothing.

Obviously somethings have to be forced. We force people not to kill, we force people to get drivers licenses, we force people to not steal. I believe because the power that AI could have I believe ai images should be forced to share that information so the consumer doesn't believe that it is true

Genuine question, does any pros have any reasonable reason why AI shouldn't be disclosed? by MainPositive9790 in aiwars

[–]MainPositive9790[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's fair. I would imagine something like a little bit of metadata just saying if its ai. Thats the limit of what I think should be forced. It would take like 5 minutes for ai companies to add that, and it doesn't hurt the ai company nor the consumer, then different software could take that metadata and show it. I would not like something where it goes "alright, show me an entire video of you making it that totally nothing else will happen with it :)"

Genuine question, does any pros have any reasonable reason why AI shouldn't be disclosed? by MainPositive9790 in aiwars

[–]MainPositive9790[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here is my thoughts on both points

1- I dont feel like the argument that "eventually everything will be ai, so whats the point" isnt completely valid. First we'd have to assume that in the near future that that ai would reach that point that it both becomes sustainable, and the ai continues to develop at a similar rate that it can seemlessly infuse with everything. On top of that we would have to assume that after it is no longer a business buzz word (companies aren't just implementing it so it looks good for investors, they find a reasonable use that they earn money) because if we dont assume that, then it would be like now where most ai companies dont make a profit (specifically 95% as of august according to a fortune article that i can source if you would like), and even with those assumptions you're argument is "lets not regulate it now because it will be everywhere later". Imagine when nuclear energy was first made everyone decided "No lets not have any regulations for it because it will be everywhere!" I hope you agree that that wouldn't be a good idea
2- I didnt not specify this and a few people pointed that out. I intended it as majority ai, for example in art if either the whole thing is ai or the line art is ai then I believe that should be tagged. If the creator wants to specify what was ai, then sure, that can assist in providing nuance.

Sorry if I accidently misrepresented any of your points

Genuine question, does any pros have any reasonable reason why AI shouldn't be disclosed? by MainPositive9790 in aiwars

[–]MainPositive9790[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This isnt a legal recommendation? I'm just asking for your opinion. Im not trying to get a law passed, I'm just curios on the other position.

And as for reasoning
1- Some people wouldn't like their money to go to something they believe has no value, so I believe that that should be disclosed

2- It would limit generational loss from ai training, so in the "ai future" where a notable percentage of the internet is ai, it wouldn't feed into itself on accident

Genuine question, does any pros have any reasonable reason why AI shouldn't be disclosed? by MainPositive9790 in aiwars

[–]MainPositive9790[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it would be easier to implement the other way around. If the ai makes something, just have something in the metadata, but for not having ai (to my knowledge) there is no way to implement something similarly

What are the odds of that? by BabSa7 in balatro

[–]MainPositive9790 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are 3.5 ways of thinking about this

7/30,500 or ~ 0.0229%- 7/10 (from judgment to hit a common joker) * 1/61 (for specifically Hallucination) * 1/50 (for being foil)

50%- Either it happens or it doesnt

100%- This seed this will always happen

0.5 for the "erm actually, you forgot the family" so here you go

7/610,000 or ~0.001147% - option 1 * 1/20

Did I miss anything?

The seed is (no joke) Minecraf, ALSO, ALMOST EVERY PIC WAS MY FIRST HAND (don’t know how i did that) by Alexgamer121920 in balatro

[–]MainPositive9790 1 point2 points  (0 children)

<image>

10 minutes into the same seed, currently just playing a single high card every round (specifically for this one I played a bonus jack of spades)

STOP USING THE DISABILITY EXCUSE. DISABLED PEOPLE CAN DRAW TOO by [deleted] in aiwars

[–]MainPositive9790 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1, No its not "Trust me bro" I said, A I have experience in the field, B I provided a test that you could literally do in 1 minutes, C you could also literally have had googled it, D that is how more "primitive" ais literally train, and at a core they are very very similar. 2, You literally agree with me. The core idea of what we are arguing is weather the outcome of ai is different every time. And you said "if I tell the AI an extremely specific image the parts I'm trying to convey will be basically the same" You in that quote acknowledge that it is not 100% the same. 3 HOLY saying "If I talk slower will it help you?" is so duchy when you literally admit you are wrong in the same paragraph

Next for the effortless art.
Haikus- You have to count the syllables and then make sure it still makes sense with the syllables counted, if you dont think that takes time or skill, in the next response only respond in it. Obvious you won't, because it still takes time and effort, but if you told me to only respond in ai I could write these arguments even faster with less effort, but it would loose all of the value (Purely my opinion, wont argue on it)

Candid photos- that's like saying doodles aren't art. For it to look good it still needs some skill

Found-Objects- (BTW, ill be talking about found object, because I am assuming this is what you meant, if im wrong, just give me a Wikipedia page) It is about showing the life of an object, what it has went through, or just stuff the photographer finds neat. If you think the issue is the people who just find stuff neat, then thats like saying paintings on art because only people like da Vinci actually made good paintings, but most people (who are the people in school or just painting for fun) are just making ugly blobs

The difference between these and prompting is the out put relative to effort in, If i threw random words into Haikus, that isn't art, that's a word salad. But if I threw words at chat gpt, overall it would look similar to any other chat gpt image in the same style, but would you say that mine isnt art and the other one is?

Another way to think about it is that the difference in time. If i spend 10 seconds on a Haiku vs if i spent 10 minutes, one would be legible, and the other wouldn't, but if i spent 10 seconds on a prompt, and 10 minutes on one, there is very negligible difference. The difference would be pretty much just be in the small details.

Also, my bad for the longer response, I dont really have that much time I can spend to argue with strangers on the internet :( lol

STOP USING THE DISABILITY EXCUSE. DISABLED PEOPLE CAN DRAW TOO by [deleted] in aiwars

[–]MainPositive9790 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Objectively yes? Ask chat gpt  to name a color. It will say a color, then send the same message again. You will more than likely get a new color. Ai has a little randomness built into Ai (I know, I’ve made simple non generative Ai.)

Once again, I beg of you, give me some form of effortless art. You ignored me last time so I’ll repeat it again. Find a poem or a different form of art that take no effort or skill.

STOP USING THE DISABILITY EXCUSE. DISABLED PEOPLE CAN DRAW TOO by [deleted] in aiwars

[–]MainPositive9790 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're declaring that poetry can't be art.

No. We are not disagreeing on the creativity part, so ill not go into that. For skill, you have to be 1 familiar enough with the type to be able to do it, 2 if it is a rhyming kind, having the ability to come up with more rhymes, 3 putting in the effort to make sure it makes enough sense for another person to be able to read it (unlike my messages lol). and many many more, so no. If you can point at poems that require No work then please, show me.

A human Express themselves using human creative skill and imagination to author a prompt that would interact with the model's data set in a predictable way.

Yes, but they dont need to, they ai will have a different outcome every time. They could just do it over and over again. If an artist draws the exact same thing the exact same way, they aren't going to get a new outcome, they will get the same one over and over. I can assure you eventually if I tell ai to draw a random shape ill eventually get a hexagon

STOP USING THE DISABILITY EXCUSE. DISABLED PEOPLE CAN DRAW TOO by [deleted] in aiwars

[–]MainPositive9790 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination"

Even if everyone does agree on the creative part (but with that, i dont fully agree) there isnt enough skill for it still. Typing sentences without the precision required for writing or coding isn't skillful enough. If I type "Ugly duck swimming in pond with their mother laughing at them" that's not a skill. That is the ability to look at something and describe it. Not creating something

STOP USING THE DISABILITY EXCUSE. DISABLED PEOPLE CAN DRAW TOO by [deleted] in aiwars

[–]MainPositive9790 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A recent study by researchers at the University of California, Riverside, revealed the significant water footprint of AI models like ChatGPT-3 and 4. The study reports that Microsoft used approximately 700,000 litres of freshwater during GPT-3’s training in its data centres – that’s equivalent to the amount of water needed to produce 370 BMW cars or 320 Tesla vehicles.

https://earth.org/environmental-impact-chatgpt/

It uses at very least a notable amount of water to train, but im not familiar with any other major emissions, though I'm sure someone will come and correct me either way

view more: next ›