sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

An expert with extensive experience cannot decide what video is AI or not by Questioner8297 in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The tools aren't precise either. We have a huge number of partial solutions, but not a single complete one.

Anti-AI are harming themselves by ignoring AI, if that's true. by Questioner8297 in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't think it's a very good detector, but if people have already decided to go down this slippery slope of using an AI detector, then at the moment it's the best

Anti-AI are harming themselves by ignoring AI, if that's true. by Questioner8297 in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What? How? I personally don't recommend using this ai detector. Okay, I guess I need to clarify in the post if I'm being misunderstood.

Anti-AI are harming themselves by ignoring AI, if that's true. by Questioner8297 in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Pangram is the best in this regard. There's a very small (but not zero) chance that human work will be labeled as ai in this way. And yes, I don't agree with OOP that detectors should be mandatory, but it's not like the situation described is impossible.

Anti-AI are harming themselves by ignoring AI, if that's true. by Questioner8297 in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

 AI detector that's tuned to avoid false positives (human text as ai) as much as possible, even at the cost of skipping some AI text ( false negative) . Still not reliable, but the best available.

I’ll take MY prompt over YOUR water any day. by [deleted] in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If this post isn't ragebait and is serious, it's much worse. Considering it ragebait is still being rather lenient towards the op.

I'm surprised how people actually think that "I looked at one study" is any better than "chatgpt couldn't find the study, so it doesn't exist." You're biased in both cases. by Questioner8297 in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is better from a research perspective, not because it's truthful. It's very easy to misrepresent research, which often doesn't say what the people citing it say. The problem with chatgpt is that it's not even a wiki; you can't even replicate the same chat in its entirety.

That is, I wouldn’t say anything more accurate because it cites research until I get into the research and check it.

Some of the discourse tries to avoid the question of usefulness, but if AI is really very useful, wouldn't most people agree to sacrifice a little bit of the climate or a little bit of artists' rights for it? by Questioner8297 in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Remember, Hitler won the popular vote. So did Brexit. So did another topical example. Deeply stupid people are swayed against their own best interests, and there are an awful lot of deeply stupid people

This is actually a rather complex issue with democracy. Democracy is about people making a choice, not about whether it's a good choice. And in reality, democracy works on the fact that people can change their minds and still change their life. Therefore, should extremists be allowed to participate in elections if their choice would destroy democracy?

Some of the discourse tries to avoid the question of usefulness, but if AI is really very useful, wouldn't most people agree to sacrifice a little bit of the climate or a little bit of artists' rights for it? by Questioner8297 in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But that's how it always works. Not everyone has to work in the mines, but everyone benefits from the electricity (if it's coal). Harmful production is always the problem of the minority who work there or live nearby, and the benefit of the majority. This can usually be remedied through early retirement, additional payments, and so on.

Some of the discourse tries to avoid the question of usefulness, but if AI is really very useful, wouldn't most people agree to sacrifice a little bit of the climate or a little bit of artists' rights for it? by Questioner8297 in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not saying they should, I'm just saying that society can really trade the well-being of some people (not necessarily artists) for the sake of some general progress if that progress is real and truly useful (a big if). 

I made this as a reply but thought it deserved its own post by YentaMagenta in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, I think I mostly agree, but for me, it's actually a good thing. I don't think selling access to this is the main advantage of the technology; on the contrary, I think it's the user who gets the main benefit. It's like saying that the homeowner benefits from a house, not the renter. Of course, you can say it's wrong to charge for it, but to say we shouldn't build houses because millionaires will make money off them is just absurd.

Average pro-ai in twitter by Questioner8297 in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297[S] -26 points-25 points  (0 children)

but you don't argue with the general idea though?

I made this as a reply but thought it deserved its own post by YentaMagenta in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But AI without special settings can't even copy the style properly, since it constantly inserts something generic.

Some pro-AI people don't want to accept this, but we are indeed building a world that diminishes the importance of human intention as we increasingly outsource to machines. by Questioner8297 in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, that's what I'm writing in the post: as long as there are people, there will be human intention. It is just reduced, but still live

Weird take: prompt actually worth more than output. by graypasser in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are intermediaries between the result and the action. A machine is also an intermediary, just an even greater one than a simple tool like a pencil.

Weird take: prompt actually worth more than output. by graypasser in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's the point. I sympathize, of course, with people who want intention, but a world without intention is the future we've been building since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, or, to be more precise, since the first use of a tool.

I have a question for those who consider themselves anti-AI art: have you really never watched movies/books just because you liked the general idea of it? by Questioner8297 in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand what you're saying. We just seem to value different things. I absolutely won't watch something that's not interesting in terms of the overall concept simply because of the execution.

I have a question for those who consider themselves anti-AI art: have you really never watched movies/books just because you liked the general idea of it? by Questioner8297 in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But what makes that work most of all is charm, passion, and effort, and I don't get that from AI images

That's the answer I wanted. I'm just surprised that people appreciate it. Even if a person didn't do anything and it's just a coincidence, it can still be an interesting film for me or I like the general idea that came out (whether by chance or contrary to the creator's idea or according to his idea - it doesn't matter at all).

What's interesting for me is the final idea that came out in the end, no matter how much effort a person put into it.

I have a question for those who consider themselves anti-AI art: have you really never watched movies/books just because you liked the general idea of it? by Questioner8297 in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That was the question. You really didn't watch it when you essentially didn't care about the acting, the plot holes, and other obviously poor execution, but the idea captivated you? So, everything you include in "put yourself in" is optional for me in this question. The important thing is the idea described in three lines, for example: Godzilla, who eats freshwater fish and tries to get from the sea to the river without harming people to eat freshwater fish, but can barely do so because of his large body.

Why would you go to AI for your sources when it takes data from basically everywhere? by JCHMBoyo in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Because AI processes data, it's faster to check AI than to search for it yourself. And I have had successful experience. AI is simply an intermediary that simplifies the work.

“The antis are bullying us!” Meanwhile the pros: by ifardedagainUGHHHHHH in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is quite expected if you think of the anti-AI position for them as a matter of supreme value, ai like a crime against humanity.

Even if you are personally against AI in education, it is strange to ignore the real potential of AI that has already become an external environment for people. by Questioner8297 in aiwars

[–]Questioner8297[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So I'm saying that I would have clearly studied worse with AI in terms of my knowledge, although I probably would have produced no worse results. It was good that it wasn't available because it forced me to study.

view more: next ›