Peanutbjelly

Absolutely magical.

must be my luck. i keep seeing articles that mention inflation, but haven't had the luck to see people addressing the profit, outside of katie porter from the states. can't get over the absurd hoarding of new wealth by the rich, and seeing the costs for basic needs go up constantly is a bit distressing within that context.

Just wait until you can copywrite a style. Guess who will end up owning all the styles.

Spoiler, it's wealthy companies like Disney and Warner. Oh you used cross hatching? Disney owns the style now you theif.

Copyright is fucked. Has been since before the Mickey mouse protection act. Our economic system is fucked. People would rather fight each other and new tools instead of rallying against the actual problem, and it's getting to me.

We still not factoring in pure profit vs actual overhead on big chain price increases?

Not even talking about it?

Ok.

then what the fuck are you even arguing? i never said "we should do NO regulation!" my criticism was against blaming A.I. for things that aren't problems created by A.I.

i said "you have given no argument against A.I. currently that doesn’t boil down to “the actual problem is unsolvable, so get rid of all automation and technology!” when addressed."

because you haven't made a cohesive point towards anything i've specifically said this entire fucking time.

are you just instigating debate for... a completely unrelated thing to anything i said in the first place? you just wanted to be argumentative and pissy?

i was addressing the general anti-A.I. stance that is heavily pushed in media right now, which is generally unfounded and unreasonable.

I.E. addressing op's article with "Existing datasets still exist. The bigger focus is in crossing modalities and refining content." i'm saying there is a lot of UNREASONABLE flak towards A.I. you freaked out at that? who's the one with no nuance?

your entire response structure is just.. for the sake of creating your own argument instead of actually addressing my main concern of unreasonable bias and push against the general concept of A.I. as a whole.

i'm not continuing with you because you are just making your own argument and being aggressive.

I never said "we can't have any regulation"

i even specifically said " i have advocated for particular A.I. tools to get much more regulation for over 5-10 years. how long have you been addressing the issue?"

jesus christ you are just an angry accusatory ball of sloppy opinions.

maybe try a conversation next time instead of aggressively wasting people's time.

it's like you just ignored my main points.

get rid of the A.I. = the problem is still the problem. has been especially for the past 50 years, any non-A.I. advancement continues the trend in the exact same way. you solved nothing.

get rid of the actual problem = you did it! now all of technology is a good thing instead of a bad thing.

false information? already a problem without A.I. always has been. media control, paid propagandists etc. if anything, A.I. might encourage the main population to learn what critical thought is. it's still just as bad if you get rid of A.I.

" CLAIMING you care about it, only to complain every single time any regulation or way to control this is proposed, because you either don’t actually care and are just saying it for rhetoric" think this is called a strawman. i have advocated for particular A.I. tools to get much more regulation for over 5-10 years. how long have you been addressing the issue?

you have given no argument against A.I. currently that doesn't boil down to "the actual problem is unsolvable, so get rid of all automation and technology!" when addressed.

which again, solves nothing, and doesn't improve anything.

should i tie your opinions to the actual result of your actions?

say you succeed. A.I. is gone. nothing has changed. inequality is still getting worse and everything is terrible. congratulations! you managed to prevent countless scientific discoveries that could help countless people. congrats, the blind and deaf lose their potential assistants. the physically challenged lose potential house-helpers. etc.

on top of that, we lose the biggest argument for socializing the economy going forward, through massive automation that can't be ignored or denied while we demand a fair economy.

for some reason i expect i'm wasting my time trying to convince you, as your argument seems more emotionally motivated than rationalized.

Are we talking about data science??

There needs to be strict regulation on models used specifically for user manipulation and advertising. Through statistics, these guys know more about you than you do. That's why it feels like they are listening in.

Can we have more focus and education around data analysis and public influence? Right now the majority of people don't even know there is a battle of knowledge and influence that they are losing.

they are different things. it's not exclusively large companies working on and understanding the technology. there's a fantastic open-source community, and a lot of users of their creations.

would destroying the open-source community help prevent the big-tech from taking over? that battle has already been lost and needs correction. crying about the evil of A.I. doesn't actually solve anything. "proper" regulation is also relative. we need entirely new paradigms of understanding things like "I.P." which aren't based on a century of lobbying from companies like disney. etc.

and yes, understanding how something works is important for actually understanding the effects, when a lot of tosh is spewed from media sites that only care to say what gets people to engage.

i'd say a fraction of what i see as vaguely directed anger towards anything A.I. is actually relegated to areas that are actual severe and important breaches of public trust and safety, and i think the advertising industry should be the absolute focal point on the danger of A.I.

Are you also arguing against every other technology that has had their benefits hoarded by the rich?

Funny I don't see much talk in this thread about Francois Chollet's abstraction and reasoning corpus, which is emphasised in the article. It's a really neat take on how to understand the ability of thought.

A couple things that stick out to me about gpt4 and the like are the lack of understanding in the realms that require multimodal interpretations, the inability to break down word and letter relationships due to tokenization, lack of true emotional ability, and similarity to the "leap before you look" aspect of our own subconscious ability to pull words out of our own ass. Imagine if you could only say the first thing that comes to mind without ever thinking or correcting before letting the words out.

I'm curious about what things will look like after solving those first couple problems, but there's even more to figure out after that.

Going by recent work I enjoy from Earl K. Miller, we seem to have oscillatory cycles of thought which are directed by wavelengths in a higher dimensional representational space. This might explain how we predict and react, as well as hold a thought to bridge certain concepts together.

I wonder if this aspect could be properly reconstructed in a model, or from functions built around concepts like the "tree of thought" paper.

It's really interesting comparing organic and artificial methods and abilities to process or create information.

surprise? it was a coin toss when they started devil may cry 5. glad to see it's coming now though. the original was fantastic due to how creative it was. they cared a lot about mechanics being natural.

most systems were very unique in implementation, like how big or small you were affected many different little things. dragon-forging mechanic was neat. there were lovely details in fighting. moments like, setting yourself on fire and jumping onto a griffin as it takes off. it catches fire while you stab it in the face, crashing to the ground. your mage finishes their tornado and then you can't see anything for a while, but the griffin dies anyway. great times.

this is a difficult one.

for people (as well as myself) to understand nuance and the complicated nature of communication and interaction. our brains are good at filling in gaps of information, which is difficult for us to perceive. there is a complexity and sparsity of interpretations and perspective which we are largely incapable of realizing. this is largely due to the excess of knowledge and experiences in the world, which can be combined or perceived in countless different ways. we are especially ignorant to what we are ignorant of.

this means we exist in a high-dimensional battlefield ball of misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and unintended inability to convey what was intended.

when we say something to someone, we expect they understand what we mean, but often their interpretations of the words you use can vary highly in ways you could not have predicted from your perspective. as well you may fail to realize the existence of several things that the other party understands or believes, which influences their perspective on countless possible things that have influenced their interpretation of your words in a way that you can't understand, and wouldn't know to discover.

at the same time many people are more susceptible to statistically ensured trend setting. this is mostly popular with bad actors who don't mind saying whatever they know will "work" instead of trying to convince people of what is true or reasonable.

TLDR: we are more confident than we should be for almost everything. we also suck at communicating for reasons that are too complex to fully see or interpret. be patient and reasonable, as we are all missing information. a good mediator helps find gaps in perspective. try not to be controlled by your emotion or instinctual reactions to situations. be critical when interpreting new information.

i would note that nothing is without nuance. while nowhere near comparable, there are some liberals that are also new-age hippies. (B.C. canada) that aren't 100% on their fact checking.

but that's unavoidable in any group that is large and diverse enough.

i think it's a cultural mentality that discourages critical thinking which leads to most conservative ideology to begin with.