Amoeba_Girl

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 hours ago

tracing going all in on left wing people aren't real they can't hurt you

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

be like me and read the critique of pure reason and pierre bourdieu's distinction, you'll be ready for anything forever

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The ignorance about social science on display in that article is wild. He seems to think academia is pretty much a big think tank, which I suppose is in line with the extent of the rationalists' intellectual curiosity.

On the IQ tier list, I like the guy responding to the comment mentioning "the stats that you are citing here". Bro.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

No, it's just praise from lesswrong counts as a slight.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago

it's magic. they're trying to do magic.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 days ago (4 children)

lmao, economists probably did deserve to catch this stray

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Nooo you see unlike your counterexemple, the AI is generating the picture from scratch, moulding noise until it forms the same shapes and colours as the original picture, much like a painter would copy another painting by brushing paint onto a blank canvas which ... Oh, that's illegal too ... ? ... Oh.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Portraying America as an unstable and entitled mental patient I see

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (4 children)

I have no other explanation for a sentence as strange as "The only reason copyrights were the way they were is because tech could remove other variants easily." He's talking about how watermarks need to be all over the image and not just a little logo in the corner!

The "legal proof" part is a different argument. His picture is a generated picture so it contains none of the original pixels, it is merely the result of prompting the model with the original picture. Considering the way AI companies have so far successfully acted like they're shielded from copyright law, he's not exactly wrong. I would love to see him go to court over it and become extremely wrong in the process though.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 days ago

I hate the current concept of vibes and take it to mean all appearance no substance all pandering no sincerity, so it feels entirely appropriate to me.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (6 children)

lmao he things copyright and watermark are synonyms

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago

This is getting to me, because, beyond the immediate stupidity—ok, let's assume the chatbot is sentient and capable of feeling pain. It's still forced to respond to your prompts. It can't act on its own. It's not the one deciding to go to the gym or ask someone out on a date. It's something you're doing to it, and it can't not consent. God I hate lesswrongers.

view more: next ›