- 0 Posts
- 69 Comments
“This part of the brand new technology that we are still figuring out is impossible”, refuses to elaborate
Is it possible that part of the message in this article is some nations would like us to give up on creating truthful AI? Saying hallucinations are impossible to fix is a great initial mood to vilify any uncomfortable truths it provided.
https://sopuli.xyz/pictrs/image/2eaf9f8c-d422-4f19-b542-b4eb72c4f3ba.webp?format=webp
This is a side effect of too much doomscrolling.
Start of the article shows the genuine reaction is there: “Children giggle as young people flash their smartphones to film robots carrying plates of freshly prepared meals on their inbuilt trays to deliver to diners in a busy eatery in Kenya’s capital.”
I cant say I disagree though, this is putting pressure on some of the twisted dynamics we live by indeed but i think your question doesn’t really work, exploiting people isnt the point, generating value with no regard of other life is and robotics make good slaves. The real issue is how will humans survive in an economy where there labor can no longer be used to obtain a share of the earth-pie.
What we can do is be vocal about normalizing universal basic income which has proven to work. This way we can still be hyped about the technology. Its going to be a matter of either we do get there or we wont live to tell the difference.
Well you could always just use the proper name. The cc license in question IS anti commercial. A great deal of ai is opens source and non commercial and to those cc is fair game. But if commercial is where you draw the line then envoking this license may do.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International)
Calling it “anti-ai” when its not removes power from your argument. Your invoking something that does not exit and linking to something seemingly unrelated.
Now the bigger question i have, have had since i have seen people do this.
Why is there still not an actual anti-ai license? Seems obvious that there is a need for it? I dont know much about how licenses are created but it strikes me as odd.
Well i understand its to combat ai from training on your comments right, maybe also to poison the data?
I just don’t see what taking a non relevant licensee and giving it a different name is doing to stop that. Trivial to filter stuff like this out in a dataset.
At best an individual data scraping company decides to honor it out of kindness. At worst people think that its a real license and copy it with a false sense of security.
I had no idea and i thought i was relatively up to date with new gen technology. I thought the foldable phones that came out where more an experimental proof of concept of the first instance of such technology but not that whole flexible panels where possible.
Even just the fact an oled display can be this thin is completely new to me.
Found them on amazon holy shit.
You’d think something like this would be major tech news, people have been talking about this tech for ages and a consensus for many is that it wasn’t impossible. (Look at all the crap foldable phones)
It’s not objectively not cheap but it’s not expensive for such revolutionary tech.
So the question isn’t if ordinary people can exert copyright over their content, they absolutely can.
The reason people seem unaware of this is because the crux is that other then a rare exception no ordinary person can sue a megaorg like google or meta and win. For mostly trying to find a literal army of lawyers and corrupt bureaucrats would be mental health suicide.
That’s exactly how capitalism likes it and thats how they stay on top in a position to lobby lawmakers, which is yet another thing you are definitely legally allowed to do as an individual.
Ive seen people link that one multiple times and i am at a loss what its about.
The cc 4.0 license it points to does not mention AI at all.
CC even has a page where they state that it probably is legal to train on cc protected content but it depends on context.
https://creativecommons.org/2023/08/18/understanding-cc-licenses-and-generative-ai/
I think someone used ai to mean attribution/alike, international. Which are part of the full name (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International) but still make little sense as an acronym next to CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 being the official acronym.
Unintentional Strawman misses the point.
A economy is but a subsystem to serve an organized society.
Not every society requires a economy, there are many ways to organize, the original foundational ideas go back to ancient greece. Read up about them.
The people with wealth and power have all the insensitive to keep things as they are. They own the planets resources, the means of productions. They loby or laws.
To think were waiting on one person to have “a better idea” for things to change is incredibly naive.
I don’t know how the system will change how the next one will look but the current one is mathematically not sustainable for another century.
Gog tries but its only drm free till its not.
Looking at you Cult of the lamb!
I wonder if were gonna start seeing modular specialized game drivers to save space and work.
We already have shared libraries for gamepad controlles and such. Why not one that handles a large language model , one for raytraced light. Maybe even an image generator for patterns in creative building games.
These would need to be standardized and able to be further molded, processed , restricted by the actual games.
Obvious the Triple Ass studios will want you to pay for online services but I legitimately believe there is a future for open source gaming and this could potentially save allot of hair pulling for some nonprofit indie devs.
My dad is a weird mix of voting for an obscure explicitly communist party while complaining how socialism ruined everything.
He expresses literal anti fasicm on principle but thinks of antifa as a violent mob.
He believes there is a woke agenda trying to manipulate society but he cant explain what woke is besides refering to cases of forced political correctness or brands changing their profile pictures to pride, he has no issues respecting lgbt, nature and is so much not a christian, he went out of his way to get debaptized.
I cant get him of Facebook, he is addicted. I told him i was probably going to delete mine this year, he told me he is certain id be back in a few weeks like his genx mates… i havent visited my profile in over 3 years, its only the familie groups chat messenger left on it. I told him but it doesn’t compute that anyone can exist without.
In all seriousness i think there better of as the forgotten generation, technically they are allies and i am certain they have roles, positions and effects on society just like every generation. But we need a real change, a break with the old, we cannot do that by lething the brainwashed lead us.
While i agree there is a big issue with the bad biased and sexist training data this entire article is about the lensa app which uses (i assume) the default stable diffusion model laion-5b.
Intentional creating sexualized pictures is banned in their guidelines. And yet no one thought of creating a good negative prompt that negates any kind of nudity or eroticism? It still doesn’t properly fix the training data but at least people aren’t unwillingly presented porn of their own images.
Also everyone can create a dataset and build a stable diffusion model, so why is lensa relying on the default model which is more like a quick and dirty tech demo. They had all the tools to do this right but decided to not even uses the easy lazy ones.
That’s is why i am putting some of my eggs in open source, which is where the real innovation happens anyway. Free Ai tools at home running on consumers devices can level people up to build a better future ourselves without having to rely on techbros or government.
Of course i should nuance my wording a bit. My actual opinions tend to be contrasting mix of both optimistic and pessimistic lines of evens. I dont have much hope that the good future is the one we will end on, but it remains in my speculative opinion possible from where we are standing today, yet all can change in less than a week.
Its quite a mess but I definitely agree that open source needs a good model trained on consented works.
I do fear though that the quality gap between copyright trained and purist models will be huge in the first decenia. And no matter the law, the tech is out there and corporation and criminals will be using it in secret nonetheless.
If only things where as simple as choosing for the chad digital artists. Digital art was part of my higher education and if i Haden t get a tech job i might have been one of them so i feel torn between the divide in industries.
This may sound doomer but since the technology exist we are in a race to obtain beyond human super intelligence and we do not know what will happen after that.
OpenAI had multiple times stated they don’t know if copyright will still mean anything in a future with ai.
We are also facing some huge global issues like global warming where a super intelligence could be the answer to sustain the planet, of course also risking evil ai in the process… i repeat such a mess
I don’t fully trust sam altman, but i do believe what they say may be true. At some point its going to be here and it will be to smart to ignore.
Its optimistically possible that in 20 years we will all be leisurely artist laughing at the idea of needing to work to earn survival.
Its of course just as likely some statehead old bastard presses the deathbutton next week and thats the end of all of it or that climate has progressed beyond what our smartest future ai could possible solve.
My concern is they and other tech companies absolutely can and would pay if they have no choice. Paying fines for illegal practices if needs be.
What absolutely wont survive a strong law to keep copyright content out of ai is the open source community which absolutely can not pay for such a thing and would be seriously lacking behind if its excluded, Strengthen the monopoly on ai by for Profit Tech. So basically this issue can have huge ramifications no matter what we end up doing.
I am as much a astrophysicist as the average lemming but is it ever proven that there is a maximum speed of information?
It may depend on how speed is defined. Maybe a maximum movement speed within space time has such limit but the fastest way to go from a to b can still be instantaneous through quantum mechanics.
Big think has an article on quantumparticles, the way I understand it they are the smallest bit of information that could potentially be both a proton or electron. I found it sounds a bit like a “bit” having the potential to be either false or true.
I think if any sciences proof the simulated world theory its quantum mechanics excluding all other possibilities or ASI figuring it out and telling us.
Quick note that this is just a hypothetical exercise i like doing. This world is as real as it will get for the duration of my life.
Interesting point that a society so advanced may not have much to gain from ancestor simulations. I havent heard that one before so thats an interesting for me to get into some night. I would think that if they may at some point fully have explored all their is in the present they may look to the past and alternative universes out of boredom.
Nonetheless I believe there is a very good reason to run the if you flip the maliciousness from you story upside down into a loving gift of life.
Why is it so unnecessary complex?
Because only the best will do for life, no one wants to live in a low powered simulation. If a simulated world is not as complex and deep as a real universe can we expect the experience and lives of its inhabitants be? We are studying those unnecessary complex phenomena right now, they may cause the next technological breakthrough.
If they where not there and while searching we find one of the tubes carrying ones and zeros we might have freaked out before maturing.
What could they still learn?
I would usually assume they may simply try to learn the conditions that lead to the big bang by simulating all kins of possibilities till you have one which is a close enough copy of reality.
But in this hypothetical we assume they are passed needing to learn anything. So they don’t instead it may simply be to teach “life” and “connections” are things that “exist” and can be “experienced”. The simulation is a loving nest designed by our techno superior parents who wish to nurse new complex life in the safety of their hardware.
It may also be that we have a purpose in the real world and that we are AI in training. The best way to solve the alignment problem is to give each AI a full experience of life with goods and bads.
Why would they do this over biological offspring?
Because (pure opinion) time is the real final frontier. Eventual cosmic heath death appears inevitable. Living near forever without aging may be possible but creating more time in the universe may not. Simulations allow life to experience much more time then outside of them. So not only are we reasonably safe in the simulation we also have all the time we need.
Of course i have conveniently ignored all the suffering in our world in this loving gift but in this context that depends on perspective. Was the human world designed as part of the simulation or was it organically generated as we evolve? Are we a single conscious in a human world? A human hive mind consciousness on a planet or are we all part of a bigger consciousness encompassing our universe. Maybe those outside our world may know, but I definitely do not.
I reason it like this.
Do you believe it is physically possible for an extremely advanced enough civilization to build a simulation where conscious simulated beings live unaware that they are simulated. Yes|No
If the answer is no, well then you can stop reading because this wont interest you further.
If the answer is yes then you may agree that over all the time in the universe bang to heat death there will be at least once such civilization that gets to this level.
If they get to this level running such simulation it is not unreasonable to assume they wont stop to only run a single one. Part of the usefulness in Simulations is that you can run many next to each other and if you have the knowledge and means already then why not.
So if you answered yes in the first question you are now at a not unreasonable hypothetical of at some point in all of time a real world society is running many simulated world.
In many ways one can argue that many simulated worlds is already a multiverse.
But lets continue with a conservative definition and say simulated world is not a separate universe,
there can only be one true real world. Which at some point may run simulations that can hold conscious lives.
You are a conscious entity, you believe to be born in this world but you never knew any better or else.
There are near infinite locations and times in the real world where you could have be born/started to exist
But a single simulation already doubles all of time and space, there are infinitely more locations and times your consciousness could manifestation in one of the many simulated worlds.
So getting to this point. What are the odds your conscious manifested inside a human embryo during one of the most interesting scientific times of human history and it also being the one real non simulated world?
I much prefer to download music as flac and keep them local but i have 2 issues.
Finding new musis is hard because i am rarely exposed to it.
Music i like tends to be more obscure and harder to find a flac download for.
Ive started to use Spotify this year for those reasons but i hate it. I would love an alternative.
It does, dyslexia isn’t just a net negative were you make errors. Which may be a side effect of specific differently wired neurological intelligence.
Being good at “Typoglycemia” isn’t exclusive to dyslexia for sure but statistically they have an advantage at the sort of thing.
People with dyslexia can also have overlap with autism, adhd, ocd. Which is why they are considered part of the bigger neurodivergent family.
you dont need dislexia for that but you are somewhat right that dilexia is an indication for certain intellectual skills.
I bet you can easily adapt and read the following famous text:
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.[a][16]
This text dating from 2003 is incorrect though, no such research was carried out by Cambridge. You can read more on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposed_letter_effect#Internet_meme
Inspirational demo provided by claude ai NOT A REAL REPORT
While mildly entertaining i doubt if anyone would really read such in full as a real article.
Editorial Report: Trump’s Debate Announcement Raises Eyebrows
Former President Donald Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to announce an upcoming debate with Vice President Kamala Harris. The announcement, however, was far from a straightforward press release, instead serving as a microcosm of Trump’s combative political style and ongoing feuds with the media and his political opponents.
Debate Details Amid Political Jabs
Trump claims to have reached an agreement for a debate with Harris, scheduled for September 10th in Philadelphia, to be broadcast on ABC. However, the former president couldn’t resist taking a swipe at the network, labeling it “ABC FAKE NEWS” and describing it as “the nastiest and most unfair newscaster in the business.” This continued antagonism towards mainstream media outlets has been a hallmark of Trump’s political career and appears unabated.
The debate rules, according to Trump, will mirror those of a previous CNN debate. In what seems to be a dig at President Biden, Trump suggests these rules “seemed to work out well for everyone except, perhaps, Crooked Joe Biden.” The use of the pejorative nickname “Crooked” for Biden indicates that Trump is maintaining his strategy of assigning unflattering monikers to his political rivals.
Format and Fairness Concerns
Trump emphasizes that the debate will be “stand up,” with candidates prohibited from using notes or “cheat sheets.” This framing implies a preference for spontaneity and perhaps a criticism of prepared remarks. He also claims to have received assurances from ABC about the debate’s fairness, specifically mentioning that neither side will receive questions in advance. The parenthetical “(No Donna Brazile!)” likely refers to the 2016 controversy where Brazile, then a CNN contributor, was accused of providing debate questions to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Jabs at Harris and Negotiations in Progress
In a particularly pointed comment, Trump alleges that Harris declined a September 4th debate on Fox News. He frames this as potential indecisiveness, stating the date remains open in case Harris “changes her mind or, Flip Flops, as she has done on every single one of her long held and cherished policy beliefs.” This accusation of inconsistency is a common political attack, though the sweeping nature of Trump’s claim is characteristically hyperbolic.
Trump also mentions the possibility of a third debate on NBC, again using the term “FAKE NEWS” to describe the network. He states that this potential debate “has not been agreed to by the Radical Left,” a term he repeatedly uses to refer to his Democratic opponents.
Analysis
Trump’s announcement, while ostensibly about a debate agreement, serves multiple purposes. It’s a platform for him to:
The confrontational tone and use of nicknames and labels (“Comrade Kamala Harris,” “Crooked Joe Biden,” “Radical Left”) are consistent with Trump’s communication style throughout his political career. This approach continues to energize his base while potentially alienating moderate voters.
It’s worth noting that as of our last update, there has been no confirmation from Harris’s team or the Democratic Party about this debate. Given the unorthodox nature of the announcement and Trump’s history of making unverified claims, it would be prudent to seek corroboration from other sources before considering this debate as confirmed.
The announcement concludes with an all-caps “GOD BLESS AMERICA!” – a patriotic flourish that has become a standard sign-off in Trump’s communications, possibly aimed at reinforcing his image as a patriotic figure.
As the 2024 election cycle heats up, this announcement, regardless of its accuracy, signals that Trump intends to maintain the confrontational and unorthodox communication style that defined his previous campaigns and presidency.