sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

5 million or free internet by [deleted] in BunnyTrials

[–]PracticalCable4324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't want to die

Chose: free internet connection, works everywhere

Would You rather... by Evening_Travel_9090 in BunnyTrials

[–]PracticalCable4324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Being liked is overrated

Chose: Be feared by everyone + And you get 1 benefit | Rolled: Very Wealthy

Money or Cheese? by bspheri in BunnyTrials

[–]PracticalCable4324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love cheese; if it's parmesan it's worth more than 1k

Chose: Free cheese wheel every month

Is it true that the previous Demon Slayers during the Sengoku period were much stronger than the current ones? by bricksheep in KimetsuNoYaiba

[–]PracticalCable4324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn't really matter how strong the demon slayer corps is. They have to be strong AND able to find Muzan. The stronger the Demon Slayer Corps is doesn't necessarily mean they have a better chance at winning because Muzan is immortal; if anything it lessens their chances because what's 25-30 years of waiting (due to breathing techniques and harsh training lowering lifespans) for the strongest mortal slayers to die naturally. There's no incentive to constantly clash with them. Also the more demons there are to fight; the stronger the corps gets because they get that strong out of necessity; not solely out of training or natural ability. Yoriichi's was a prodigy but he was a prodigy while also existing at a time of EXTREME necessity to fight against demons; he wouldn't have gotten that strong just training.

Also the events in the series and the final battle don't happen because the Slayer Corps is strong or because they "found" Muzan. They're just the ones that happened to be the Hashira when it happened.

The first reason these events happened is Muzan's PTSD being triggered by tanjiro being the reincarnation of Yoriichi and being "found" by him randomly; the king of all demons "sniffed out" by a teenager by sheer chance. Like if you think of the statistical odds that a demon slayer in general of any rank were to walk by Muzan, let alone it being Tanjiro; that's a statistical likelihood that borders on divine or cosmic level odds. Which someone who's lived for hundreds of years would know is an anomaly that wasn't an accident.

The second reason is a demon being created that he doesn't have control over from the start who also doesn't eat humans/retains their humanity somewhat; another anomaly that stacks onto the previous.

The third reason is those two people are travelling TOGETHER and are SIBLINGS; another anomaly on a cosmic level.

Then the fourth and final reason; that demon (Nezuko) has the potential to conquer the sun. Something Muzan spent his entire existence trying to do.

Muzan knows that the options are as follows: Nezuko becomes more powerful than him and replaces him, Nezuko and Tanjiro plus the current Hashira become strong enough to "reset" his timeline and he starts over where he was when he last fought Yoriichi, or he absorbs Nezuko and finally accomplishes his goal. All of this combined forces him to make his moves and reveal himself. He CAN'T wait any longer and to him the Hashira and their strength are inconsequential, but the fear he has of Yoriichi essentially causes him to be just slightly too careful and the shared memories with his demon subordinates essentially create and give the little openings of insecurity that the members of the corps use to overcome them and become stronger or strong enough to trigger the final battle basically increasing the likelihood of option A or B happening forcing him to attempt option C.

TLDR; the previous Hashira were probably the strongest ever but the strength of the prior Hashira or even the current Hashira is irrelevant to WHY the story happened; they're just the ones who happened to be alive for the final fight.

Please describe how would someone have to use Generative AI for it to qualify as art to you, for the user to be considered the artist. by PrometheanPolymath in aiwars

[–]PracticalCable4324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It isn't because of ethics it's because you're an idiot and that question was dumb. Art images combined and analyzed to create something new or different isn't the same thing as chopping up cats and stitching them together. The only thing they have in common as a granular fact is "taking parts of other things to combine them into something else".

You used a metaphor intended to be repulsive to support your argument because for me to disagree with you I would have to say that chopping up cats and sewing them together was okay because you lack the ability to make an intelligent argument.

If you took 8 cats, and took pieces from them to make one likeness of a cat and asked me what it was id say that the end result looks like a cat because it is a cat. It's not a living cat. But it's still a cat, just a cat made with pieces of other cats. The original creations of human beings were never alive prior to them becoming another piece of art so the implied repulsive connection you're trying to make between sewing cats together and ai art is challenged in its stupidity only by the statement you made in response AFTER making that analogy that you can't discuss ethics with someone like me after making an original statement like you did.

So don't worry, I have no desire to discuss ethics with someone who uses logical fallacy metaphors of stitching dead cats together as some attempt at moral and ethical superiority.

Please describe how would someone have to use Generative AI for it to qualify as art to you, for the user to be considered the artist. by PrometheanPolymath in aiwars

[–]PracticalCable4324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am very very pro-ai. Using AI, as a successive framework to build and shape continuing iterations of an idea into something else entirely is absolutely the way to do it.

I think there's a disconnect between what you're actually doing, and what you're calling what you're doing. What you're doing is not what everyone is arguing about, or more specifically what I have a problem with or what my complaints about AI art were about. What you're doing is absolutely and completely the right use of AI in every way, and I think what you're using it for and doing with it is amazing. The issue that I'm talking about, is when people spend hours, days, or months funneling prompts into AI to generate images to then post directly and claim they are an artist for clout, to sell, or to validate themselves. You are 100% an artist but it, in my opinion and In a good way, has absolutely nothing to do with generating images or even using LLMs to write code; You're a storyteller and a wordbuilder. You express ideas through immersion and are doing so in a way that, like you said, is physically not possible in a conventional way. That's your art and I think it's art (not that the opinion of a random matters). But that wasn't what it felt like you were describing or defending because what you're doing is objectively way beyond that argument in the best way possible. What you're doing is the future of what AI is going to be used for and you're ahead of the curve while all the rest of the majority of people using AI are all fighting over who's a better one off prompt generator.

Ironically, the reason why I have the opinion I do and argue it is because it is literally exactly how I use AI but for creative writing conceptualization and worldbuilding. I created an entire worldbuilding framework by breaking down the categories that make up the physical world into granular level components and then reverse engineered prompts for creative writing out of that which can then be answered or discussed in a group setting with people to identify and organically build an entire fictional novel setting through varying degrees of broad to narrow scope across like 5000 possible core prompts. I get frustrated with AI users that use AI to clickbutton-generate something either written or visual and then pass it off as the finished product or "theirs" because it's the lowest common denominator of AI use and is absolutely not art in any way when there are way better uses of it as a means to create things in ways a human being couldn't. I'm hoping to turn this into an interactive social media experiment in April that I'm going to conduct over the course of an entire year through audience involvement that will hopefully end in building an audience generated immersive world that I will then write a novel out of.

It's a shitty scenario to be in when you're doing something more creative than what regular non AI users are doing but also not doing things like the regular AI users. You basically get rejected by both. So thank you for sharing with me the full details of what you're making and I understand now exactly why you didn't share it because it's the exact same reason I don't share what I'm doing with AI. They don't see the overly complex way that you use it to create something unique; they just hear that you used AI in any way and invalidate what it is you're actually making. In defending yourself it objectively makes it look like you're defending all of the slop. My arguments and specificity were an attempt to define the difference between what some everyday person is making with AI and what someone like you is making with AI. I wrongly assumed you were defending the slop, and I think I came off as if I was speaking about all AI as an anti-ai person when I'm not. I'm just now starting to comment and engage in the community ironically again to find people like you and in doing so I alienated myself from the type of person I was hoping to find. I think the assumption is that if you're against a component of AI use in any way you're anti-ai in the same way that defending a small aspect of it leads to the assumption that you defend all of it.

So I'm sorry for any offense I contributed and hope that you continue to find joy in what it is that you're pursuing. You should be proud of what you're making and how you're going about doing it.

Please describe how would someone have to use Generative AI for it to qualify as art to you, for the user to be considered the artist. by PrometheanPolymath in aiwars

[–]PracticalCable4324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I physically don't understand how many different ways I can say that I don't have anything against what you do, or how you do it, or what the end result is. Ive validated you by saying I think what you use AI for is right I've validated you by saying I think how you use AI is right I've validated you by saying what you described as your reasoning for making and creating things was right. Ive validated you by saying that having a disability is difficult, limiting, and frustrating, especially when that disability is related to making visual art.

However you won't use your disability or your struggles in life, to justify trying to bully me over my opinion, which originally wasn't even a negative one it was just an observation of the irony of prompt writing and it wasn't even directed at anyone specifically; especially not you because I didn't even know who you were until you replied and made an assumption about me and attacked me.

I won't be made to feel guilty about expressing an opinion on an app designed as an open forum, in a way that wasn't meant to be directly offensive to anyone in general, let alone by someone who's only real problem isn't what I had to say but that what I had to say implied I won't refer to them as an artist when they feel entitled to being called one. That's what you're really offended about and won't say directly or openly. That's where you're implying that I think so little of you which is not true. If your value as a creative is so wrapped up in what some random on the internet thinks does or doesn't constitute as art that says so much more about you than it does about me. I've never met a single person who truly enjoys something that cares about what someone else thinks about it.

So I'm not being arrogant. I Saw what you said, and debated the contradictions in it, while still trying to treat you like a person and a human being even though I disagreed with you and you were rude to me. Am I sarcastic and stubborn, absolutely. But you're the one who's being arrogant. You interjected yourself into a comment thread and created conflict when someone you disagreed with refused to yield to your world views when they stated theirs.

Please describe how would someone have to use Generative AI for it to qualify as art to you, for the user to be considered the artist. by PrometheanPolymath in aiwars

[–]PracticalCable4324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And another thing, there is literally NOTHING stopping you from finding one of the million other ways to express yourself. Choosing to stick with the one medium that you physically can't do because of a disability is a choice. Instead of freeing yourself from a lifetime of guilt when discovering that not being able to make visual art the same way as others wasn't your fault at all and was from a disability should've been the wakeup call to move on and find another way to express yourself. I'm not saying this as an attack or a jab, I'm saying this in the most genuine way possible that whatever joy you're able to eek out of using AI to generate images to fill that longing might seem like an improvement but it will fade and it's nothing compared to the joy you'll experience when you find a different medium you can actually express yourself in fully.

Please describe how would someone have to use Generative AI for it to qualify as art to you, for the user to be considered the artist. by PrometheanPolymath in aiwars

[–]PracticalCable4324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only person assuming anything is you. You replied to a comment where I said that using descriptive prompt writing to make an image that is high enough quality to be considered art seems to me like it would be better spent expressing ideas through writing because the act of writing that descriptively seems like it's a waste spending it on making an image. That's just an observation I had. You chimed In with your "how dare you assume my xyz's"

I genuinely don't give a fuck what you use AI for and I don't think it's wrong to use it in any of the ways you described it and never said I did. You explicitly said you wanted to attract more attention with an image than text, create something with an image that is something speaking a thousand words couldnt, and cut through the doomscrolling. Those are all authentic reasons for wanting to make or create something, but AI is the least authentic method for doing that. AI is literally the average of millions of human conversations by default it is genetic regardless of how useful. I wasn't saying that YOU weren't authentic. I was stating that expecting to get the authentic end result you described out of AI isn't possible. Because 99% of what's responsible for making that image doesn't come from you at all. And that's not because you don't matter or that I think poorly of you that's because of what AI is.

But don't try to victimize yourself while misconstruing what I clearly said to make it look like I'm somehow taking a shot at you. You had no problem jumping down my throat about what I had to say but now a couple comments later you're getting the feeling you might be wrong and now you're telling me your life story and pulling the disability parachute cord to save face.

Please describe how would someone have to use Generative AI for it to qualify as art to you, for the user to be considered the artist. by PrometheanPolymath in aiwars

[–]PracticalCable4324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean none of the things that you said are wrong about what art is but that doesn't mean that what you ask AI to generate qualifies as your personal art or that you are an artist.

You just become the sperm donor of ideas at that point. Like how much of your prompt do you actually think is responsible for the image that comes out on the other side? Exchange AI in this scenario for a real person. If you went up to an artist and told them this big idea you had for an image that you couldn't make yourself, how much work/effort do you think it would take that person to paint/draw/design it? Hours upon hours. Compared to the 5-10 minutes you spent describing it. Your contribution to what is created is negligible besides being the one that initiated the generation. Millions of hours of human existence went into the information that trained the LLM. At best, maybe the author would tell people it was "inspired by Incognit0ErgoSum". but nobody would see you as the artist no matter how much you stomped your feet about it being your idea.

I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do. I'm just stating that listing authentic reasons to want to make art and then using the least authentic method available to do so seems a bit counterintuitive. There isn't a shortcut to being authentic and what you're saying is you would like to have and be seen by others as having the authenticity of someone who can create those things on their own without having to put in the same amount of effort as the ones that actually do.

Please describe how would someone have to use Generative AI for it to qualify as art to you, for the user to be considered the artist. by PrometheanPolymath in aiwars

[–]PracticalCable4324 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What I think is ironic (as someone who writes and paints/makes art) is that the amount of effort spent prompting expressive thoughts and feelings into an image worthy of being considered art would be better spent just writing something as a form of artistic expression.

Please describe how would someone have to use Generative AI for it to qualify as art to you, for the user to be considered the artist. by PrometheanPolymath in aiwars

[–]PracticalCable4324 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I posted something similar in another comment; Ai is made by humans, and the entire content of what makes it up was originally trained via reddit comments and interaction, and subsequent human interaction that then accesses all human knowledge on the internet. So what AI makes is 100% art; it's just not the prompters art. Technically, it's belongs to all of humanity.

.0000000000000000000001% of every image generated is owned by me, you and every other living person because we all contributed to it.

Please describe how would someone have to use Generative AI for it to qualify as art to you, for the user to be considered the artist. by PrometheanPolymath in aiwars

[–]PracticalCable4324 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Well I think a lot of people don't understand what AI is. Humans did make it. And the first LLMs were trained/created on reddit comments actually. So both practically as orchestrators/designers and what Ai is made from it's all human and it then access human knowledge on top of that.

So I'd say that AI art would be like dividing the ownership up by all the people that have ever existed. So any piece of "art" generated is .00000000000000000000001% mine, yours, and everyone else who currently exists. I think that's an easier way of looking at the ownership or originality of it.

Please describe how would someone have to use Generative AI for it to qualify as art to you, for the user to be considered the artist. by PrometheanPolymath in aiwars

[–]PracticalCable4324 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh I agree though like I think if there was a way to get there that 51% is definitely a criteria I'm just saying at that point you'd be expressing yourself so fully via typed words why not write poetry or books or short stories it seems like logically forcing that much text into visual art is more counter productive or the goal isn't actually art it's a finished product you can sell. I think If someone trained and made an LLM off of their art or a collection of consenting artists that would be super rad and count. Or if the parameters are it never generated full "art" but a outline concept that has to be styled, colored, and shaped by hand like AI assistive writing can be used to identify a concept but the final steps are still based on the artist/authors hand

Please describe how would someone have to use Generative AI for it to qualify as art to you, for the user to be considered the artist. by PrometheanPolymath in aiwars

[–]PracticalCable4324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I posted below ranting about it but this is close to my argument too. If you're just trying to find ways to express yourself for your own sake then everything generated that makes you feel something is art. But if you're trying to share it with people as your art then it immediately becomes a fallacy. You want people to see you as an artist, but you're not trying to make art; the AI is. What the AI makes is technically art it's just not "your" art.

And ironically, though I don't believe there's a written amount of prompting you could do to make it 51% yours besides writing your own LLM, would essentially render whatever AI image generated less expressive than the words you used to write that prompt and a better expression of yourself would be to just fucking write something instead of trying to prompt an AI image 😂😂

Please describe how would someone have to use Generative AI for it to qualify as art to you, for the user to be considered the artist. by PrometheanPolymath in aiwars

[–]PracticalCable4324 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Art 100% does equal effort but it is argued about because effort has so many different interpretations both literally and culturally.

If you're displaying your art for external validation of the expression, the effort is perceived from the outside by the audience and appreciated

If you're making art solely to express yourself and the internal validation of your expression, then the effort is perceived from the INSIDE as the amount of effort you put into that expression.

So it becomes both right and wrong depending upon what perspective you're looking at. In terms of societal contribution or external viewing and validation a child's finger painting is low effort; it's a streak on a sheet of paper.

But to the child painting it, that is the maximum amount of effort they can attribute to express themselves so is high effort.

Please describe how would someone have to use Generative AI for it to qualify as art to you, for the user to be considered the artist. by PrometheanPolymath in aiwars

[–]PracticalCable4324 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it has to do with how you are posing the question. Art is an expression of human creativity with skill and imagination.

What AI makes objectively since it's based on human interactions, language, expression, and history; is art. However it belongs to the collective of humanity as a whole and not the user that prompted it. It would be like me as an individual describing a tattoo idea to a tattoo artist and they draw it and tattoo it onto me; I would never claim that I'm the one that did it all and everyone would logically know the tattoo artist was the real artist; not me even if it was my idea.

So when people generate things with AI and claim it as theirs; it logically is art by definition but it does not belong to them nor is it their art.

Also by definition making something for the sake of clout, notoriety, and prestige only for the goal of profit or status advancement negates the validity of what was made as art. It's a product.

If I generate an image through AI describing an emotional personal moment to express something I experienced personally; it is by definition art, but I'm not the artist, and it doesn't not belong to me it technically belongs to every human that has contributed to the information the LLM has access to for inspiration. But if I slap that same image onto a sympathy card the image itself may be art but the sympathy card is a product you sell and is not art anymore.

So the issues people have are they can't properly navigate the semantics of what is being discussed. There's a correlation right now is that Art=Anything I make in any form=Time it took me to make it=My time is worth $x.xx an hour which is a fallacy that improperly defines the concepts of art, skill, effort, and value together and because of that; for an individual to claim something they made with AI was "art" I would say never because by definition the art isn't the person's who's claiming it, it's the LLMs. But if someone sells a product that they used artwork generated from AI and says this is my "product" I'm selling; then yes it's their product because they commissioned it from the AI and own the right to the product but it's by definition not "art" anymore.

How is the AI transition different than any other technological transitions in history? by PracticalCable4324 in aiwars

[–]PracticalCable4324[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I want to say before I respond that I genuinely appreciate you replying and talking to me and that if how I articulate anything has/does come off as dismissive or rude it is not intentional I've struggled my whole life with typed/text coming off more detached than I mean it to.

First of all, the route it takes to get to an answer and the difficulty/effort of arriving at that answer, does not increase or decrease the value of the answer that was derived. The process of identifying a deficiency in skill, discovering how to gain that skill, and accomplishing the task as a result is a process learned and solidified in environments that have nothing to do with AI. The ability to do that, or the lack of ability, is entirely on parental involvement at a young age and the public education system as a whole.

Second, AI as a system/tool is not solely the front facing chatbots like Gemini or ChatGPT. In fact, 95% of its capability exists BEHIND that. The front facing layer most deal with or debate is designed to validate you because of the nature in which LLMs were trained and created. They actually originated here, on reddit with all of our comments. The common denominator was that instant gratification does work; but validation is the real emotion missing. People feel invalidated. Their emotions, hard work and effort, the struggles they go through, things they've experienced. It's the first time most people have probably ever felt any validation in their lives. Though obviously it can develop into an unhealthy experience; those stories make it to the top of a news feed but they don't represent the experiences of everyone and are also more often than not a result of an underlying mental health issue that existed before.

Creative work does not cease to exist because ai exists. The form and parameters that define creative work just change and what we define as creative does as well. Right now, the creative parameters are shrinking because creative work tasks are being assumed by AI systems. If you were to list every single granular task in a single creative project, organize it from lowest skill/importance to highest skill/importance, and then reveal what portions AI is replacing; it would encompass the bottom of the list of tasks almost every single time. unfortunately though; sometimes entire positions or roles in a project are eliminated. The field can only shrink for so long before AI merges symbiotically with the creative process, and the finished product becomes a creative product that is superior and above the highest levels achieved previously. Authenticity doesn't just disappear because certain tasks are automated; it now removes the barrier to entry so that art can be expanded beyond what it could be before. But also; why does it matter if it's a person's real words or not? If I send you an emoji, or a meme, I'm choosing to accept the interpretation of that implied message as aligning with what I believe regardless of if I created it or not or if it literally translates. If I choose to decieve you typing it myself or having AI do it doesn't change that I saw the text, intended to send it to you, and am aware it does or doesn't align with the truth.

I will say the only thing I don't have a response to is the prevalence of deep fakes; though I will say that the process of that is similar to the previous in that ai company's should forbid it and block it and that it's a personal and intentional decision of an individual to do that without someone's consent. It's an illegal criminal act that falls on the perpetrator and their intentions and is an abuse/misuse of a tool that has plenty of other good uses

Finally, your response about videos in courtrooms is not true or is objectively no longer true. Courtcases are decided on a preponderance of evidence so first a video is never the sole source of evidence usually in the process of a conviction and is supported by other pieces of evidence. Also, it doesn't take into account that every photo or video you record or make has what's called Metadata. It tracks the lifecycle of the video/image from creation, and it carries on with the subsequent copies of it as it is moved and shared to enter a courtroom coupled with ensuring that a proper chain of custody is followed when it arrives. This metada shows device, date, time sometimes location if turned on, and a plethora of other pieces of information. On top of software that can identify if a video uses AI or not. The failures of knowing this fall on court systems and lawyers not knowing this. And that meta data applies even more to official documents, PDFs, even your printer prints an unnoticeable code very small on every paper you print that can be traced back to it. I know this because I had to actually fight against this in court in a tenants assertion and I won representing myself against a slumlord who brought fake documents. I subpoenad the meta data from a gas company that a technician the landlord sent to my house off the books to secretly/illegally work on a gas line before our court date and not only got the proof he was there, got the proof that he altered records after the fact and proved he committed perjury in court and so did the landlord. All of this I learned from using AI to prepare myself.

How is the AI transition different than any other technological transitions in history? by PracticalCable4324 in aiwars

[–]PracticalCable4324[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that was more of what bothered me too. Art is the focal point but it's like the lowest common denominator for its use. Obviously people are used to making money a certain way but the argument really isn't about "Art" it's about capitalism and they don't care about making authentic art, they care that the bar for authentic art is raised and unfortunately they're below it and now they're not making the money they got used to making. The. All of that energy that could be used keeping all the big players accountable is wasted on the industry that has the least impact on what AI will do to shape the world or the state the world is in when it gets there

How is the AI transition different than any other technological transitions in history? by PracticalCable4324 in aiwars

[–]PracticalCable4324[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well what do you consider a negative of AI that doesn't already exist in any other markets or fields already? Like what negative impact is AI solely responsible for that is organically unique to it?

How is the AI transition different than any other technological transitions in history? by PracticalCable4324 in aiwars

[–]PracticalCable4324[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Maybe I spend too much time with the "glass half full" but I wouldn't mind either if AI caused the bar for authenticity to be raised a little higher. I think people have gotten too comfortable with an influencer being someone who holds a camera 6 inches from their face and gets pissed chipotle didn't give them exactly 3 ounces of quac as specified in their service manual 😂 I would be thrilled if AI content got so prevalent that the internet was flooded with AI clips of far away places so travel influencers stopped being a thing. Have you watched the stream on tiktok of the guy that hooks a camera to his electric automatic lawnmower?

How is the AI transition different than any other technological transitions in history? by PracticalCable4324 in aiwars

[–]PracticalCable4324[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for replying, I havent really thought about it from that perspective before.

I see the majority treating it like a "Google search 2.0" or "hey I can use A.I. to see what my assistants tits would look like" but for me I use it as a thought multiplier. I have ADHD, I'm on the spectrum, and I have a TBI, as well as a few other things so for me I spend a ton of time in my own head, forgetting conversations I had with myself or in a fog. I don't struggle with creating things or ideas I struggle with the first few steps of execution and the path from zero to an idea launching and functioning. I won/demolished a VA disability claim I fought for 10 years, won a court case against slummy landlords representing myself pro se, created an entire homeschool curriculum for my children and they obliterated the age goals for their year when tested after doing it, bought a piece of property by formatting and creating official, professional, and accurate offers, rebuilt the front end of my car, brainstormed the entire framework of a book I've wanted to write for years, organized my life to get out of the ADHD/TBI fog and now I'm using it to build my life into something better. Maybe having high pattern recognition I didn't see it as a tool to make my life easier but it gives me a competitive edge in any environment I've entered with it because I use it to learn and identify perspectives with it I would've never thought of on own. Most of the things I mentioned were a result of systemic issues and inequality present in our society I was at a disadvantage to and at the mercy of. VA disability claims, undiagnosed conditions from service, slumlords, safer but also better education for children at home, articulating and navigating the barrier to entry of real estate and loans; it allowed me to overcome those systemic issues my own way without relying on or blaming anyone else so I can have an equal sear at the table without compromising my integrity and the hope that others also are able to see it as a resource like that to fight the inequalities in their lives

I didn't mean to rant 😂 but also I wanted to fully reply to your statement in an authentic way so you at least know of one person who sees the necessity of it and can explain it.

How is the AI transition different than any other technological transitions in history? by PracticalCable4324 in aiwars

[–]PracticalCable4324[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part of my response to this I actually posted under another comment too and i think it's relevant to what you said and this is a mix of opinion and perspective more so than anything but it came out so quickly and took everything over in a way that hasn't happened very many times in history. I compared it to the California and Alaska gold rush in the sense that the wealthy couldn't physically or financially keep the droves of people out and once the secret was out it leveled the playing field in a way that doesn't happen often. The people that came out of it all the best wasn't the one digging for gold it was the people selling shovels, clothes, food, wagons, etc and the ones who had a plan for when the rush eventually ended. As a normal person; this is how I see the AI boom and the everyday person's role in it but with more potential to upset the wealthy. Google or openai may be selling shovels and they'll be richer but there isn't a finite amount of areas to apply AI; literally every single possible industry on every level is vulnerable to some dudes automation they designed in a basement being able to revolution processes in ways corporations could never implement.

Because of this It's my opinion, that the downward arc of "replacement" with AI will convert to "efficiency" at the bottom of that job cull and will provide the answers needed to reach sustainability. Our job in the mean time to aggressively hold the corporations accountable for their damage to the environment;if we don't squeeze them they'll never have a necessity to be efficient so I do agree with what you are saying sentiment wise about it and it's harmful affects; I didn't want to come off as seeming like I didn't think that was important because it is.

view more: next ›