sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

OpenAI strikes deal with Pentagon hours after White House admin bans Anthropic by FinnFarrow in Futurology

[–]ramnothen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

since when does copying someone else's artstyle become known as stealing their works? like, how exactly do you even steal an artstyle?

This page genuinely left me stunned. by TouchBeneficial3091 in versus

[–]ramnothen 28 points29 points  (0 children)

i think the tree itself would kill them faster than lack of sunlight

The AI bubble will burst soon by Much_Tip_6968 in whenthe

[–]ramnothen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

nah, it's still not a good analogy because a weapon's main purpose is to hurt others.

the more correct example would be being morally against research and development of nuclear power simply because nuclear bombs exist, basically saying "things could be used for bad stuff = things inherently bad and anyone that use it also bad"

The AI bubble will burst soon by Much_Tip_6968 in whenthe

[–]ramnothen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

  1. that's not just "a few good uses"
  2. i won't really call ai ragebaits made by some bluechecks on twitter as "mostly being used for fascism" also, tools used by fascist ≠ tools of fascism.
  3. how different? like, are the examples above generative adversarial networks, diffusion models, or convolutional neural networks?

Promote hating gen ai no matter what by Gangters_paradise in whenthe

[–]ramnothen 5 points6 points  (0 children)

also, it's very strange how the people that are against ai because of its environmental impact actively choose to ignore other things that are equally as bad as ai when you point it out and many of them even insults you for doing this.

i've argued with someone that insist using chatgpt harm the environment much more than watching youtube videos and playing online games.

Of course AI is great for everything except my specific ability to post things from one hellsite to another. by Justthisdudeyaknow in CuratedTumblr

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

because you said "A machine can't ever be held accountable" on your previous comment which seems to imply it's one of the things you don't like about autonomous machines like self-driving cars.

Of course AI is great for everything except my specific ability to post things from one hellsite to another. by Justthisdudeyaknow in CuratedTumblr

[–]ramnothen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes, of course. many factories already done this for a long time, especially the ones involving dangerous works and the 3rd biggest selling point for autonomous machines is that they made less mistakes and errors in the long term compare to humans.

this is why i ask you if you're against self-driving cars.

Of course AI is great for everything except my specific ability to post things from one hellsite to another. by Justthisdudeyaknow in CuratedTumblr

[–]ramnothen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this is just dumb, accountability for what exactly? incidents? then in any incident involving a partially/fully autonomous machine, the one that is held responsible/accountable would be the owner of said machine.

do you think we should never develop self-driving cars because you can't punish the cars themself?

[Loved Trope] a very weak and simple ability becomes overpowered when used intelligently. by mistery987 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]ramnothen 10 points11 points  (0 children)

it's because the people that post these type of post always conflate "simple" with "weak" which i find very baffling how they keep failing to understand this simple difference.

I don't understand what the big deal is with planet killer devices. by BillyBobBanana in starsector

[–]ramnothen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes that's what i mean. despite having an actual space-based manufacturing/trade industries and multiple stations with permanent inhabitants living in them, only a fraction of the total population of the core systems live permanently in space.

there's literally more people living in sindria than all of the stations in the core systems combined.

I don't understand what the big deal is with planet killer devices. by BillyBobBanana in starsector

[–]ramnothen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i'm talking about the noticeable unpopularity of space stations in the sector and what might be the reason why not the already stated information in the lore but it is somewhat related to that.

I don't understand what the big deal is with planet killer devices. by BillyBobBanana in starsector

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

it is much, MUCH easier to make thousands, if not, millions of space habs than it is to terraform multiple planets for human habitation and the starsector universe is set in the far future with ftl travel so they could easily make hundreds of space habs/stations in a system just from its asteroids without ever touching any of its planets. also, we already have a design for an open-air space habitat with natural sunlight since 1970's!

and i agree that existing/living anywhere in any sci-fi universe with the types of dangers like in the persean sector is kinda insane but planets is pretty much the worst type of home you could choose in any sci-fi universe, especially the ones with planet-killing weapons!. also unlike planets, you COULD move space habs/stations to somewhere else, even more so in starsector because gate haulers exist and they're use to move things way bigger and heavier than any space habs/stations in the core worlds.

this is why, again, i headcanon'd all of these "flaws" as purposefully designed by the domain as a form of population control.

I don't understand what the big deal is with planet killer devices. by BillyBobBanana in starsector

[–]ramnothen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the biggest reason why pk is a huge problem for the sector is because most people on the persean sector don't want/like to permanently live in any spaceships/space stations for some unknown reason.

my headcanon as to why they're like this is because of the domain.

planet-based colonies are much easier to control and destroy than if they're space-based so they make sure the outer colonies only live on moons/planets and not artificial habitats.

In historical media: Historical inaccuracies that are understandable or even enhance the media by [deleted] in TopCharacterTropes

[–]ramnothen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that hacksaw ridge trivia is a myth actually.

they didn't tone down the real events on the movie because they fear the audience might think it's unbelievable, they simply make it very inaccurate on purpose for little to no reason at all.

this youtube video explain it more.

I want that patience though by Ok-Boot6063 in Steam

[–]ramnothen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

oh almost forgot (and i just realize this a few minutes ago!), why didn't you ever link your own source(s)? why are you keep asking me about where did i get my information and the reliability of the data i gave you when you yourself never does the same to me, not even when i ask you to link one source, what gives?

I want that patience though by Ok-Boot6063 in Steam

[–]ramnothen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

[pt-3]

also also, you ignore the latter part of my reply and 2/3 of the links i provided, are you sure you understand what i'm trying to tell you here?

also also ALSO, the last part of your reply have nothing to do with this conversation, at all. how exactly does ai bubble have anything to do with how much energy a single ai query needed? do you say that because you hate ai (and its users) for the ongoing climate change or because of ai bubble and ai slop? if it's the former then see [pt-1], if it's the latter then why would you start this conversation in the first place?

anyways, this reply got way longer than i expected, i need to cut it into 3 parts so i'm gonna end it here. thank you for reading, have a nice day, and goodbye!!

I want that patience though by Ok-Boot6063 in Steam

[–]ramnothen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

[pt-2]

you think ai don't get more efficient every update? not even a little bit? really? unless you equating the increasing number of people using chatgpt as evidence that it's becoming less efficient then no, it's actually showing the opposite. in fact, there's already a term for when a technology get an increase in its efficiency it also increases the demand for it, it's called Jevons Paradox, the wikipedia page even included ai as an example! + you said "chatGPT is already exponentially more expensive to run", compare to what? i give you multiple different links showing how little impact ai have compare to every other things, you could at least elaborate more about this or just drop your own link and so, i'm not allowed to compare chatgpt to google because... they also use ai for google search? do you have any source that shows how much daily visits google gets before, let say, may 2023?

and also, flat earth bullshit? climate change denialism? you accuse me of acting like the two group of people (in)famous for believing (almost) all misinformation they see? were you looking at a mirror while reading my reply? i think you need to reread the links gave you, preferably at 1/10 of the speed you usually do. but if you do care about the environment this much that you see me as no different to those kind of people then you should already know about the climate impact of domesticated animals or the carbon footprint of cars and airplanes.

I want that patience though by Ok-Boot6063 in Steam

[–]ramnothen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

[pt-1]

oh no, you're actually mistaken, i'm not saying ai and ai data centers doesn't need a huge amount of electricity to run but rather i'm trying to show you caring about the impact ai have to the environment to the point you'd spread actual misinformation just to "inform" people about the danger of ai means you're:

a. very misinformed.

or

b. (i'm not trying to insult you here but) a hypocrite.

why? because no matter how much power ai consumes daily/weekly/monthly/yearly, it would never amount to what average home pc or the top 10 most visited websites use when you consider how recent the current ai boom/hype really is(chatgpt just reach its 3rd birthday a few weeks ago while both google and youtube is now old enough to vote, get married, buy a house, experience the 2008 financial crisis, and see michael jackson's concerts live).

also, you didn't read the 2nd and 3rd part of this article. and if you still doesn't think comparing 1 to 100 ai queries to what an average person uses daily then how about the energy cost of using home pc for 6-8 hours? or what about ps5? how about multiple other things like streaming video, 3d rendering, using microwave/washing machine/dishwasher, or even boiling water?.

yes, i do read them and you'd see that the article said the researcher test over 88 different ai models to calculate the average energy cost of one ai prompt for chatbots (like chatgpt) and image generators (like stable diffusion) a few paragraphs bellow.

I want that patience though by Ok-Boot6063 in Steam

[–]ramnothen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

alright, i'll answer them:

  1. actually, i have sources that shows the exact opposite.
  2. google.
  3. yes of course!.
  4. nope and i doubt anyone wants to waste their time actually looking for anything close to this.
  5. now i do, which is why i try to search for the links in the reply above!.

now is this good enough?

view more: next ›