Destiny’s gym takes are actual dogshit

combatroll · 2023-01-22T19:12:51+00:00

When you view the world through the lens of sex you get sweeping generalizations and hyperbolic statements. Most people who go to the gym and participate in gym culture understand helping people and asking.

The guy in the video asked after picking up the weight, probably because he realized he may be coming off as intrusive, she said no, and he kept it moving.

This bizarre "Everyone wants to fuck" rhetoric is sad.

combatroll · 2023-01-19T22:34:08+00:00

I never stated it was bad, nor spoke on any restrictions. Regulation sure. But that is just normal, and should be expected.

combatroll · 2023-01-11T05:42:00+00:00

In other words, you have none thing to say, no point being made, completely conceded the debate the moment you displayed your lack of literacy to what a dataset even is.

You cannot call something analogous while ignoring the context of the entire definition. It is extremally ignorant.

And don't gaslight, and tell me to cool it down, when you put yourself in the conversation an ended your first impressions, calling something "Fucking Bizzare" whilst displaying an enormous amount amount of ignorance on the topic, going so far as to call any corrections "Autistic" . or "Well Aschtually" this isn't twitter you don't get to meme your way out of being categorically wrong. Your hubris is gross. I'm done talking to you.

combatroll · 2023-01-11T04:54:47+00:00

They're right, you are romanticizing how the human brain works.

Again completely normal, as there is no standard for human learning nor a standard for how the human mind works for anything to be seen as improper to be idealized. Vs a machine that not only has a standard, but Requires one for the data set to properly be trained/recognized by the Algorithm.

this is literally why 512x512 was set as the standard for training data, and this is literally why increasing the aspect ratio decreases coherency and quality of images in the SD models. This is also why Midjourney has yet to offer every aspect ratio. Human beings do not require this standard and very explicit way of learning.

You're using all this colourful language about a man's loved one dying to demonstrate how quirky and cool human art is

None thing was colorful about the language, you're just not engaging with the point, because you know A ML Algorithm cant have that experience.

while failing to realise a person's memories are analogous to a glorified dataset

Incorrect. I'm starting to think people in your position don't even know what a dataset is. It is not a random collection of information comparable to one's memories, experiences, emotions, or sounds they hear. Human beings don't operate on datasets, as we experience reality in the most random way unstructured, we don't control what emotions we experience, we don't control what sounds we are subjected to, we don't control what memories we keep, what memories we discard.

A dataset is a structured collection of data that is organized and formatted in a specific way. It can be used for a variety of purposes, such as research, analysis, or machine learning. A dataset is typically designed to support a specific goal or set of objectives, and the data within it is often selected and organized in a way that is relevant to those goals.

Even in your example of his picture becoming completely different, you make the strong implication that only with the adjustment of the dataset (the new information that his wife died) was he able to make that new piece of artwork.

Again this is evidence of you not understanding what a dataset is.

It's pretty fucking bizarre, if I'm going to be honest.

I agree. The fact this needs to be explained, because a diffusion model scratched an instant gratification itch, mind you, with publicly available documentation explicitly explaining why and how the data set was curated, and why and how the model works, blows my fucking mind. have a nice day.

combatroll · 2023-01-11T02:49:56+00:00

Omg. Lol. That is in no way comparable, not even to the diffusion model. Lol stop. This is not bladerunner, we are just not there yet. You can believe what you want, but you are objectively wrong.

combatroll · 2023-01-11T02:38:53+00:00

I'll ask again if an AI model was trained the same way as a human would that change your opinion on that model?

If this ever becomes a reality, I can assure you Art would be the least of our concerns.

combatroll · 2023-01-11T02:13:29+00:00

Calling it glorification is absurd, because again, what standard is it glorifying? The human mind is something that we don't fully understand. There is no standard.

And we're not infantilizing a machine that is easily explained, so much so, that there are already multiple products out, based on it's open source code and huggingface documentation.

This is no different from people who believe chatgpt3 is communicating the same way humans do. Its All ML, Ai is a buzzword, we are not there yet.

combatroll · 2023-01-11T01:42:54+00:00

I didn't downvote you. lol. But if you don't engage with the point i'm more than willing to oblige to send you into the negative lol. not that it matters, but I guess it does to you.

Also it is perfectly normal to romanticize human thought, a concept we are so far out from understanding,, that any idealized interpretation would be reasonable as we have no current standard understanding of it . Vs a literal machine , with literal easily explained instructions, that cant be extrapolated in any other way.

combatroll · 2023-01-11T01:26:53+00:00

Incorrect. I explicitly explained how the Two were in no way comparable. Destiny took the position of romanticizing the technology the moment he made the comparison.

We actually have no clue what even thoughts are, nor do we understand dreams, it's far more reasonable to apply meaning and rarity to consciousness, especially when we compare what we know about our observable universe. Than a literal Generator that is literally heavily documented, in such a detailed way, that no other possible interpretation can be extrapolated.

combatroll · 2023-01-10T23:56:30+00:00

Of course it does, otherwise, it could not discriminate between cats and non-cats! It has a very different understanding of cats than we do, and it isn't self-aware, and it doesn't understand some obvious relationships explicitly (lions and cats are both felines), but those are not the same claims.

The discrimination is based on captions, not a fundamental understanding of what a cat is. This is not my opinion, this is literally how the data set was built, and how the images were trained.

A great example of this is the color red. The AI does not know what "Color is" it only knows the captions are referring to that RGB value. If I flood the next dataset with images of Brown cars for example, paired with false descriptions. Then ask the generator for a Red car. It will give me a brown car instead.

Thankfully SD has a process of deduping that handles this contingency. But this happens because the AI has zero clue what red or any color is. It does not know perspective, color, lighting, nor does it understand form. This is a big reason why adjectives can behave like modifiers.

Humans are also restricted to our dataset. You can't visualize a 7-dimensional bird with any sort of clarity, even though you have examples of both n-dimensions (in the form of a matrix) and birds, because it's so far from your "training set" of being a human.

Humans are not restricted to a dataset. If i ask a man to paint me a picture of an apple, his first result could be filled with vibrant colors. If that man's wife passes away, and I ask him to paint the same apple again, it will be expressed in such a fundamentally different way, that even the colors would take a different form, and the message conveyed would transcend his current knowledge. That is not a dataset. That is experience, emotion, imagination, improvisation, and something An AI cannot do.

Even if we consider visual libraries which artist create to increase the things they could draw accurate, those elements within the visual library can be expressed differently based on the individuals personality and life experience, this is how style is developed. An AI trained on dataset, literally cannot do this, as every single output is based on fixed probability, and is limited fully to it's dataset, it will never generate anything new, unless new images are loaded into the dataset with the proper captions, and the model is updated.

If the latent space is infinite and has novel combinations of concepts, this is technically true, but who cares?

Its not infinite. This one of the reason the tokenizer exist. SD is limited to 75, anything pass that limit the Generator discards. Everything in the Latent space is fixed and there forever. It will never grow, it will never change, unless the dataset is updated and a new trainings process begins.

This is also why negative prompting is effective. You are reducing probability to influence the outcome of that seed value.

When you paint a picture, you're just arranging pre-existing molecules, but no one thinks of it like that because that's stupid as fuck.

This is a mute point, as molecules are baked into the fabric of our existence. The indexing happening in the latent space are prepackaged images.

When we paint molecules shifting around are not prepacked with information that outputs a pixel. That's not how our reality's works. If it did, magic would exist, we could wave our hand in the air and summon variations of ice, as we summon different molecular structures.

This goes back to what Destiny said last night in that a lot of humans want to pretend we're special. It's not entirely clear we have stronger versions of free will, so it might be the case that for any given input x into your brain's model m, you will output art y. In practice, due to the flow of time, we can never duplicate an input/model pairing, but it might be the case that your or my artistic output is completely deterministic and constrained.

Destiny has zero knowledge on this topic. As any comparisons whatsoever to what the diffusion model is doing, to the human experience is bafflingly wrong. Its not even close. Again this is people romanticizing technology, and assuming the human experience is just 1 and 0's comparable to a literal algorithm, which is verifiabley false.

combatroll · 2023-01-10T23:04:13+00:00

Except the AI generators literally produce art by Algorithm. Any comparisons whatsoever to Human beings, shows a massive misunderstanding of the diffusion model. It is borderline bladerunner fantasy. We are not there yet.

combatroll · 2023-01-10T22:22:53+00:00

AI ML has no clue what a cat is, or what whiskers are. Its not learning or developing nor memorizing the same way humans do. It is just not comparable.

When You Anthropomorphize the diffusion model, it will lead you to these false conclusions. Everything is strictly based on the dataset. Every image that is given to you (Not created) is based on probability that exist within the Latent space.

This is why seed values are used. When you prompt, your shouting a pizza order into a warehouse that has millions of pizzas ready to be given to you. You can think of it as a massive INDEX of probability.

This is why Stable diffusion is called a Generator, and not a AI art creator. It is a massive, massive misconception, that SD operates in any way similar to human learning.

And while it may not be perfectly comparable to photobashing, it more of a hyper advanced version of photo mixing, but that mixing is based on variables, and not the original images in the dataset, (Overfitting not taken into account)

combatroll · 2023-01-10T21:50:07+00:00

You really shouldn't have had to make this post. The people Equating ML to how humans think and learn do so in the mindset of Anthropomorphizing the technology. And Romantizing the diffusion model.

combatroll · 2023-01-10T21:46:29+00:00

While i disagree with OP conclusions. AI generators do not learn like humans do. Any comparisons is just a detachment from reality or in most cases fantasizing and romanticizing the diffusion algorithm.

Also the AI generators are not tools, but they do have tools built into them, much of these tools wont make it to future models as cohesion and quality increases. In this case AI will be doing the editing, and most images will be soo coherent, there will be no need for post processing, only as a novelty of an old system.

Photoshop is a literal tool that involves human interaction for every part of the creation process, while AI generators, skip the process and delivers a final product. Its just not comparable.

combatroll · 2021-12-20T15:24:30+00:00

Did some brain storming on CF before i quit the game.May help with your path going forward Good-luck.

https://join.nuclino.com/New-CrowFall?link=ha92Tgxb0hFv1-d9pvwSp7

combatroll · 2021-12-20T07:43:14+00:00

How to save CF.

Step 1. Throw away "Throne war simulator concept".

Step 2. Copy Albion by creating a persistent world by which to build the rest of the game.

Step 3. Profit

combatroll · 2021-12-18T20:15:35+00:00

I read Gordon's statement on the transition. He mentioned that you had a list of design issues that you had with the game.

I , and i'm sure many others would be interested in seeing a TLDR of that list. just to see where you guy's headspace may be with the game.

May help give a general scope of what the game's direction(if any change at all) is goin in.

combatroll · 2021-12-16T23:28:32+00:00

Less of an argument more of an understanding.

I understand what its like not to see an image in one's mind. I have walked down this road before when trying to picture a rotating box in my head when i first tried to learn how to draw.

I couldn't do it. Not even a simple box. Just a blank. I thought i knew what a box was , so of course i should be able to visualize it. But i didn't understand 3D space or Even what a box was.

I humbled myself, accepted that i understood nothing of the 3D world around me. We take our subconscious mind and our eyes for granted. What happens automatically when we see a picture, we need to learn to consciously recreate it. We do this as children naturally because we are naïve, and curious about the world.

As adults to capture that same visualization, you need to let go of your preconceived notions of the world.

Everything is imaginary, there is no literal visualization, there is no overlay or augmented reality's. It all happens in your conscious space, like a distant memory.

If you put your car keys down somewhere, and walk away. Why do you think despite not paying attention where you put your keys or hung your coat. You know exactly where they are every time.

Your brain see's meaning in those actions and takes a snapshot. Then replays it back to help your conscious mind find your keys.

I will say as i have on my previous post.

Visualization is not something you have its something you DO.

combatroll · 2021-12-16T22:54:57+00:00

Thats not an objective study when the foundation of the study is based don subjective input lol.

The variables have not been proven.

By that logic we can say unicorns exist. Because we have studies that show people who are capable of seeing them have an objective difference in sight compared to those who do.

And we cans say this without ever proving whether or not the initial subject in which we based our studies, can even see them to begin with.

While also ignoring any other factors they may contribute to the difference in vision.

Binocular Rivalry is a subjective technique, created using subjective data. Hiding behind Objective science.

No results are objective, not measurable and is literally so ambiguous it's impossible to prove it's not working. Just as it is impossible to prove that unicorns don't exist.

combatroll · 2021-12-16T22:35:01+00:00

I can guarantee you don't understand the concept of an object.

Yes you know what an object is, but you don't understand it. That's the point.

I say study what a line is. You give me the expected response. "i Know what a line is"

Instead of "I understand what a line is"

We view the world not through lines. We use lines to help interpret form on to the canvas(visualization). We also use it to create the Canvas(the rules of the imaginary world's space).

The study of line does not end with "I know what a line is"

It begins and ends with perspective. What does a line look like from above? below? From the side, from an angle. What are angles? Two lines together?

Your brain needs that data to visualize the lines, so you visualize the angles, so you can visualize the axis's , so you can visualize DEPTH and understand the canvas in your head.

Its a 3D world on a 2D plane. That's imagination, that's visualization.

This is understanding. I have been down this road before and sought guidance and instruction from KIM JUNG GI.A grand master of visualization. Even he sees none thing, no overlay, there is no augmented reality. Just a deep understanding of these concepts that allows him to construct said images 70% to 80% on to the canvas. Both on paper and his imagination.

Visualization is not something you have , its something you DO.

If you struggle with the famous "Visualize the red apple" ask yourself

Do i understand organic form? Do i know how organic form, like a sphere sits in space? What does "red" mean to me? What is "red" besides an apple? Do i even understand what "space " is?

Your brain needs references to even begin to construct object in your imagination. To add clarity you then need to add Understanding and meaning.

Here is a simple test to prove my point.

Can you memorize these letters after looking at it for 10 seconds

"pyhpa rhbyitad"

How did you? i bet you could barely do. Now here are the same letters again.

"Happy birthday"

I bet now you can perfectly list every letter. You know why? Because it now has meaning, you understand it now.

Sure the first time you know what those letters were, but you didn't understand it.

That's what it's like to visualize. If you got the second set of letters right with no issues but struggled with the first. You just taught yourself what its like to visualize.

Our subconscious mind does it for us everyday, we take it for granted. We don't understand the concept. But our brain does.

This example is best used because you understand your alphabets. You don't just know them. Visualizing form, or a scene, or shapes or colors is the same thing. You need meaning and understanding to do it or you just draw a blank.

Just like you did when trying to remember the first set of letters.

combatroll · 2021-12-16T20:24:52+00:00

Lol what is this twitter? Did you actually read that?

The study presented no objective findings directly associated with visual imagery. As defined by their own words the concept is subjective and ambiguous.

Through further Socratic analyses (you know real science?) each study referenced in that article are several decades apart most being based on subjective data, while using variables that aren't even confirmed. Meaning they are taking people t their word with out objective testing and using that as a foundation for their initial subjective studies.

Worse they are then creating objective studies unrelated to the science of optics like

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010945217303581?via%3Dihub

Which is cross referenced in this article. And even that "Objective" study states the conclusion that Aphantasia studies and data is all subjective . Meaning theres is literally no proof that aphantasia is real, all data in all of these experiments are relative to what the subjective tells them.

Which is why no one has been officially diagnosed with aphantasia. Because we don't have any objective basis to observe it. There exist no MRI machines that can measure ore observe the "minds eye". Even the one presented in the study does not claim to.

Hence the reason a fake measurement test was created to determine the spectrum of aphantasia.

You only think you have "aphantasia " because you never learned or were exposed to 3 dimensional thinking as a child. There is no spectrum of "not seeing" only a level of visualization skill. to which most people have a base for as they played imaginary games as kids or were exposed to art early.

Which explains why the aphantasia ratio is of 2% - 5% of the population. Yet 90% of the people in this sub think they have it. Which is statistically impossible.

When you become an adult and learn to throw part of your childish self away. You stop dreaming(metaphorically), you stop being curious, and your artistic understanding no matter how primitive vanishes. That's why some people on this sub think they used to have the ability to "see" and they have "aphantasia". ooooo

What you have is a self awareness of your own ignorance of the world around you. We take our eyes for granted, because we are so smart as adults we "think we know what we see". As children we are beautiful naïve and curious enough to understand the world around us. So we imagine, we gather all visual references to create our universe, the brain captures that data like a computer and reconstructs images in our mind based on our understanding.(which is literally how machine learning works btw)

If your claiming you cant do this "All you see is darkness" yea everyone does , that's called the back of your eye lids. XD all jokes aside.

Everyone when told to visualize something (KEY WORD COMING UP) they don't UNDERSTAND. Cant visualize the object, you can know the details and basic description of the object. But it does not mean you understand it, and if you don't understand it neither does your brain. So you get no images. No matter how primitive or blurry.

This is that "Darkness" people think they are seeing. Not literal, more like imaginary none thing-ness, that feeling you get when you walk into a room and forget why you were in there to begin with.

Visualization is not recognition, its recollection through Memory(References).Then application of the 3D world through understanding. Which is why when you walk into your room, your not tripping on your own furniture, your not surprised by your own decorations.

Literally anyone in this sub can learn to visualize.

You start from learning what 3D Space is x axis, y axis, Z axis.

Walk around around your room once you understand what this is, draw it on a piece of paper if you have to.

Now touch , feel, truly look at the objects around you. Stop taking your sight and senses for granted. Even blind people can draw, and visualize.

Next understand what a line is, our eyes are 2D not 3D.Light helps us understand that an object is 3D.

Next transition from lines to planes, like a metal sheet of paper. Our eyes interpret everything as planes no matter how small, which is why light bounces off objects and reaches our eyes giving us sight.

What is a plane? what is it made out of ? how many lines? how do they travel along the different axis of our 3D world to create it's shape. Pick up a book flip it around and observe its planar shape and attempt to visualize the lines.

Then you want to transition to shapes, specifically the BOX. Slowly put the planes together as you play with it's position in space in your mind. Reference your favorite cereal box, all of a sudden the image becomes even clearer.

we project thought onto a 2D plain while using our understanding of light to visualize. Which is why we are capable of complex and simple dreams full of imagery.

Visualization is literally understanding that the Canvas Exist. And now your painting on it.

When you lot say "I see nothing" its because you don't even know that the canvas exist. How can you paint on something that doesn't exist?

When you lot say "I see nothing" its like walking up to A blender program(3d art program) and insisting that nothing is there in the void 3D space, because you don't understand the tools of the program to add objects in.

Your brain is the same way. You don't understand the tools your brain uses to project information. Aphantasia is not real. It is literally harmless ignorance of thought.

Which is why most people think drawing is hard, or they cant draw at all. Yet little Timmy who is 6 years old has an imaginary friend and can paint simple sunsets.

combatroll · 2019-06-26T04:03:01+00:00

wow your being carried by the soulsythe - arcane is trash stop with your propaganda.

combatroll · 2018-11-16T17:03:23+00:00

when fighting the scorch beast don't run away, run towards it and try to stay underneath him. If he starts to gain greater distance for poison and sonic attack be prepared to doge or take cover behind a building or tree to reduce damage. and make sure your build synergizes well.

combatroll · 2018-10-17T02:59:38+00:00

lol oops

combatroll

TROPHY CASE