prototype_g2

joined 10 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago

AI art being inherently “plagiarising”

Yes it is, simply due to the nature of the "training"/"learning" process, which is learning in name alone. If you know how this mathematical process works you know the machine's definition of success is how well it's output matches the data it was trained with. The machine is effectively trying to encrypt it's data base on it's nodes. I would recommend you inform yourself on how the "training" process actually works, down to the mathematical level.

AI using as much energy’s crypto , the AI = crypto mindset in general

AI is often push by the same people who pushed NFTs and whatnot, so this is somewhat understandable. And yes, AI consumes a lot of energy and water. Maybe not as much as crypto, but still, not something we can afford to use for mindless entertainment in our current climate catastrophe.

AI art “having no soul”

Yup. AI "art" works by finding pixel patterns that repeat with a given token. Due to it's nature, it can only repeat patterns which it identified in it's training data. Now, we have all heard of the saying "An image in worth a thousand words". This saying is quite the understatement. For one to describe an image down to the last detail, such detail that someone who never saw the image could perfectly replicate it, one how need more than a thousand words, as evidenced by computer image files, since these are basically what was just described. The training data never has enough detail to describe the whole image in such detail and therefore it is incapable of doing anything too specific.

Art is very personal, the more of yourself you put into a piece, the more unique and "soulful" it will be. The more of the work you delegate to the machine, the less of yourself you can put into the piece, and if 100% of the image generation was made by the machine, which is in turn simply calculating an average image that matches the prompt, then nothing of you is in the piece. It is nothing more than the maths that created it.

Simple text descriptions do not give the human meaningful control over the final piece, and that is why pretty much any artist worth their tittle is not using it.

Also, the irony that we are automating the arts, something which people enjoy doing, instead of the soul degrading jobs nobody wants to do, should not be lost on us.

“Peops use AI to do «BAD THING» , therefour AI ISZ THE DEVILLLL ‼‼‼”

It is true that AI is being used in horrible was that will take sometime to adapt, it is simply that the negative usages of AI have more visibility than the positive usages. As a matter of fact, this node network technology was already in use in many fields before the Chat-GPT induced AI hype train.

can’t trust anti AI peops to actually criticise the tech

Correct. It is well known that those who stem to financially benefit from the success of AI are more than willing to lie about it's true capabilities.

 

What are your thoughts on Generative Machine Learning models? Do you like them? Why? What future do you see for this technology?

What about non-generative uses for these neural networks? Do you know of any field that could use such pattern recognition technology?

I want to get a feel for what are the general thoughts of Lemmy Users on this technology.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

veeeeery powerful tool for self-education

You know these are pattern recognition machines, right? And not an actually reliable source of information, right? These are hallucination machine which sometimes gets right simply by virtue of such truthful statements being repeated often enough in the data for the machine to pick it up. It can give contradicting answers depending on what keywords you use. As such it is of little education value.

If anything, it makes self-education harder, as search results will be filled with perfectly SEOed LLM article with no quality standards and complete disregard for the truthfulness of the text written, poisoning the well of knowledge the internet was supposed to be. And as a bit of irony, these poor quality pattern-based texts will later be used in future machine learning databases, thus lowering the quality of said data, causing the machine's own decay.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

AI just screams "lazy" and "lack of care". If they don't care that every article they put out has a completely unnecessary AI image in it, what guarantee do I have they care about any of the content on their website?

If they can't afford an image then it's better to have none than to give money to a company that will DDOS their servers with web-scrappers.

In my eyes, AI = Complete disregard for quality control.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 6 days ago (5 children)

We should probably still allow links to archives/alternative front ends because screenshots of content can be forged. But yeah we should not give those sites more traffic and only link to archives/alternative front ends if necessary.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Yup. Its seems like it.

Funny how any mention of it being a paid service is only at the bottom of the page.

Does anyone know of any alternatives?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yup. These "AI" machines are not much more than glorified pattern recognition software. They are hallucination machines that sometimes get things right by accident.

Comparing them to .tar or .zip files is an interesting way of thinking about how the "training process" is nothing more than adjusting the machine sot that it copies the training data (backwards propagation). Since training works is such a way that the machine's definition of success is how well if copies the training data:

  • If the output is similar to the training data, then it is a success
  • If the output is different for the training data, it is a failure
 

I'm trying to build up my feed using rss, but some sites just don't have it or doesn't let me filter through it as thoroughly as I want to.

I found this website, rss.app, that seems to be the solution to these problems, but I never really heard of this site before. Is there anything I should know about it?

I'm asking because the site requires you to make an account there to use it which asks for your name and email address and I don't want some random company spamming my email.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Why am I not surprised? People who know nothing about these things think we just created a brain simulation: they think it's magic! While those who are tech-savvy know just what these things can and can't do and know just how unreliable they can be.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago

Yes... we should probably ban Xitter links... but maybe allow other front ends? You know, because screenshots can be forged.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

Why don't you asked them yourself? [email protected]

Probably a bad idea to ask about a Marxist instance on a .world community, since .world is known to be quite biased against Marxism.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sorry! I added it now.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Nobody "owns" land. Even under capitalism. If you think you do, stop paying the ~~rent~~ tax you pay the government in order to "own" that land and see what happens.

Point is, even if you "own" a house, if the government decides they want to confiscate it, they have a whole army to do it. All ownership is always at the mercy of the government. (More accurately, ownership is at the mercy of whoever has the monopoly on violence, since they can only take ownership through it.)

view more: next ›