Drewelite

@Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  If Apple (or any metaphorical creator you want to insert in here) doesn’t want you using their product to make your movie, too bad. You bought their product. Even if millions of people end up watching your movie, they can’t turn around and ask for any more. You acquired their product fairly like anybody else. Your transaction is done. If they don’t like it, they should ask every person who’s ever made or contributed to any version of the components in their device and see how they feel about it.

  Now people using ChatGPT to impersonate artists shouldn’t do that. But those individual people should be prosecuted. Nobody’s confused that Andy Warhol might be quickly painting the pictures and sending them over in the DALL-E chat and you can’t honestly make the argument that people aren’t buying Stephen King books because they can type “Write me a Stephen King novel” into the prompt generator.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  By that rationalization, OpenAI is paying their Internet bill, and for a copy of Dune, so they’re free to use any content they acquired to make their product better. Your original argument wasn’t akin to, “Shouldn’t someone using an iPhone pay for one?” It was “Shouldn’t Apple get a cut of everything made with the iPhone?”

  You could make the argument that people use ChatGPT to churn out garbage content, sure, but a lot of cinephiles would accuse your proverbial indie movie of being the same and blame Apple for creating the iPhone and enabling it. If you want to make that argument, go ahead. But don’t pretend it has anything to do with people getting paid fairly for what they made.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  You’re making an indie movie on your iPhone with friends. You sell one ticket. You now owe: Apple, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce’s estate (inventor of the camera), every cinematographer who first devised the type of shots you’re using, the writers since the beginning of time that created the types of story elements in the script, the mathematicians and scientists that developed lense technology, the car manufacturers that aided your ability to transport you to the set, the guy who’s YouTube tutorial you watched to figure out lighting, etc, etc, etc.

  Your black and white framing appears to provide a clear ethical framework until you dig a millimeter into it. The reality is that society only exists because of the work that all of the individuals within it produce. Things like copyright are an adapter to our capitalistic economy to ensure people’s work that can be copied, are protected enough that they have the opportunity to make money off of it. It exists so somebody else can’t immediately turn around and sell the same book someone else wrote, or just change a few words and do as such. This protection was meant to last 15 to 20 years. Then enter the public domain for anyone to copy and rewrite as they please.

  Current copyright is an utter bastardization of its intended use. Massive corporations are trying to act like they’re fighting for the little guy to own their IP forever. But they buy up all that IP for pennies compared to how they turn around and commoditize it. Then they own all of what society produces in perpetuity. They can sit on their dragon hoards and laugh as they gobble up any new creation that strays too close. And people wonder why everything is a sequel of a sequel of a sequel owned by massive corporations.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I think what you’re forgetting is that intelligence, in general, is an emergent property of recording information and learning what actions to take based on them. The current work on AI is essentially trying to take this evolutionary behavior, make it less random, and compress the cycles of iteration down so that intelligence emerges quickly. This whole argument “It’s not smart like I’m smart” with only surface level observation about it’s current state and no critical observation about how intelligence came to be, just sounds really insecure.

  I get it. Humans will likely not be the smartest thing in the arena soon. But stating matter-of-factly that AI is inherently different is born from an emotional viewpoint. I understand there ARE differences, but no more so then how there are differences between a human and a dog. Which if you’re honestly looking at the situation is impressively close to human intelligence in such a short time.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Fully agree. I understand why there are many technological doomers out there and I think AI may be the most deserving of a critical eye. But the immense benefits of being able to manufacture intelligence is undeniable. That NECESSITATES the AI being able to observe anything and everything in the world that it can. That’s how any known intelligence has ever learned and there’s no scientific basis for an intelligence coming into existence knowing everything about the world without it ever being taught anything.

  Now I’ve heard a lot of criticism of AI. Some really legitimate concerns about their place in the future (and ours). As well as the ethics of this important technology originating in the private hands of mega corps that historically have not had our best interest at heart. But the VAST majority of criticism has been about how it’s not useful or is just an avenue for copyright abuse. Which at best, is just completely missing the point. But at worst, is the thinly vailed protests of people made very uncomfortable that the status quo is being upset.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨it's just that simple. Don't forget to exercise out of depression...⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah the thing that is so hard is that none of the individual actions feel successful. But overtime they pay off. You have to build a guest house for happiness and keep it clean. So the next time he shows up, maybe he’ll stay awhile.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨No one’s ready for this: Our basic assumptions about photos capturing reality are about to go up in smoke.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m not talking about vetting pictures. I’m talking about journalists who investigate issues THEMSELVES and uncover the truth. They take their OWN pictures and post them on their website and accounts putting their credibility as collateral. We trust them, not because it’s a picture, but because of who took it.

  This already happened with text, people learned “Don’t believe everything you read!” And invented the press to figure out the truth. It used to be a core part of our society. But people were tricked into thinking pictures and video were somehow mediums of empirical truth, just because it’s HARD to fake. But never impossible. Which is worse, actually. So we neglected the press and let it collapse into a shit show because we thought we could do it ourselves.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨No one’s ready for this: Our basic assumptions about photos capturing reality are about to go up in smoke.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  So, shouldn’t the pretense that images are sources of truth evaporating, be a good thing?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨No one’s ready for this: Our basic assumptions about photos capturing reality are about to go up in smoke.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  If you’re getting your truth from somewhere you don’t trust, you’ve already lost the plot. Having a medium to convey absolute truth is NOT the exception, because it never existed. Not with first hand accounts, not with photos, not with videos. Anything, from its inception, has been able to be faked by someone motivated enough.

  What we need is an industry of independent ethically driven individuals to investigate and be a trusted source of truth on the world’s important events. Then they can release journals about their findings. We can call them journalers or something, I don’t know, I don’t have all the answers. Too bad nothing like that exists when we need it most 🥲

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨No one’s ready for this: Our basic assumptions about photos capturing reality are about to go up in smoke.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I think this comment misses the point that even one doctored photo created by a team of highly skilled individuals can change the course of history. And when that’s what it takes, it’s easier to sell it to the public.

  What matters is the source. What we’re being forced to reckon with now is: the assumption that photos capture indisputable reality has never and will never be true. That’s why we invented journalism. Ethically driven people to investigate and be impartial sources of truth on what’s happening in the world. But we’ve neglected and abused the profession so much that it’s a shell of what we need it to be.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Regarding this picture, where do you think quantum computers lie and why?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, why would a farmer need a fancy calculator the size of a room? 🙄

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube creator sues Nvidia and OpenAI for ‘unjust enrichment’ for using their videos for AI training⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  There are tons of artists that copy others very closely. There are plenty of examples of A.I. making all kinds of unique and quirky artwork despite drawing from artworks. Feels like you’re backing into the grey area of option so that you can stick to a framework that fits a narrative.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If everyone is fired by AI, who's going to buy the products and services made by the companies if no one has money anymore?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s the goal ain’t it? Imma need y’all’s help.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If everyone is fired by AI, who's going to buy the products and services made by the companies if no one has money anymore?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  They won’t need maintenance if they’re a general purpose intelligence. A technology that has the possibility to free all of humanity from scarcity, has the possibility to finally collapse dominance of aristocracy for good. Sure, they’ll try and put themselves on top somehow. But once the knowledge exists, anyone can create a version for the greater good.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If everyone is fired by AI, who's going to buy the products and services made by the companies if no one has money anymore?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s the cool part, you won’t. If everything crucial is automated, people can drive things forward for passion rather than for money. Of course, this would effectively collapse capitalism, which won’t happen painlessly.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The AI-focused COPIED Act would make removing digital watermarks illegal⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  With all respect, your argument has a pretty obvious emotional valence. You don’t care if the result is 1:1, you care that it happened in a way that makes you uncomfortable. Art can be an outlet for self expression and no one is taking that away. What’s it to you if I enjoy asking an AI for art? The fact of the matter is, capitalism has never been a good place for artists who want to follow their dream. If that’s something you want, then I’d suggest supporting the end of all work for money that automation provides. Then people can truly work on whatever they care about all day and not have to worry about feeding themselves.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Redditor has worst possible experience with Google’s new Find My Device network⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  How could this be?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨AI's Future Hangs in the Balance With California Law⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Totally get where you’re coming from. Corporate greed seems like the boogie man behind capitalism. It’s easy to understand: make line go up. But I’m afraid the dark parts of capitalism are spookier than that. They don’t just want money. If that were the case they’d sell all those expensive corporate offices and let people be more productive at home.

  They want people to lord over, they want the power to surveil them. To make them do team building exercises. They call themselves a family. They take team pictures with the CEO smiling in front. People think of them as heartless machines. But machines would try and make people happy, that’s when they work the best. No, they’re narcissists. Their whole incentive to climb the ladder is to be standing on someone else’s head.

  Who are you king of, if there’s only robots around you?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨AI's Future Hangs in the Balance With California Law⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I think it’s important to consider these elements and try to mitigate them as we move forward. But they’ll never be completely fixed.

  If anything has the power to collapse capitalism, it’s AI automation. Capitalism is all about keeping people working for the benefit of those above with the threat of not getting what you need to survive. That threat is predicated by there not being enough to go around.

  Once we’re able to make an enormous surplus without the labor of the common man; the basis of capitalism begins to crumble. I fear that if we give corporations time, they’ll try and make the world run on AI WITHOUT anyone losing jobs. That terrifies me more, because people will accept the status quo but lose the only power they ever had in capitalism: The combined value of their labor. A strike doesn’t work so well if your whole job is pushing a button to make AI do it.

  I think the beginning of AI will be painful for the reasons we both have outlined. But I believe that’s growing pains towards a better future. Giving corpse time to boil the frog won’t be good. Keeping the corps fighting each other to be the first by pushing this tech forward is the quickest way for them to create their own obsolescence.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨AI's Future Hangs in the Balance With California Law⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, because it’s good stuff to point out and think on… But ultimately inconsequential as the previous comment points out. The world is getting AI eventually, the question is do we want to be the first ones with the keys?

  All the same arguments could have been made about the internet. Inb4 someone makes the incredibly likewarm take that the internet was a mistake. It was inevitable, if we had “pumped-the-brakes” on it we wouldn’t have found some clean way to implement the internet where no one gets hurt. Someone who wasn’t concerned about ethics would have got their first to set the standard.

  Actually a better analogy for AI might be the nuclear bomb. If we slow down someone else will get their first. Silicone Valley doesn’t have the best track record with ethics. But call me crazy, I’d rather them figure it out before China or Russia. Because they sure as shit ain’t using their brakes.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Does anyone else feel like fireworks are a complete waste of money and a ridiculous amount of unnecessary Pollution?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  This is sort of where I get confused about people pissed at Taylor Swift for having a private jet. Like I totally understand that some of the trips have been shown to be unnecessary and I agree. But how many sports teams and equipment do we transport for greater carbon emissions to bring joy to a fraction as many people? Like think about an American football game, world cup game, Olympics, F1 race, Golf tournament… hell even Burning Man? I feel like it’s just low hanging fruit for her critics to stir up shit.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Measurements⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I’ve used Blender for years. Recently I was looking for a video editor. Somebody suggested use Blender. I thought, okay this will be funny, let’s try it. Don’t get me wrong Premier (best IMO) is better if you can get it for free. But damn… it was actually comparable!!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is social media fuelling political polarisation?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s still ideas the group agrees with. The idea is: that we all disagree with this idea. It’s subtle, until you look at the same story on CNN vs Fox. Two bubbles discussing the same issue with two VERY different emotional valences.

  To put it another way: the discussion of these ideas that are oppositional to the community, is not with the intention of seriously considering them. It’s with the intention of dismissing them in a group act of catharsis. It maintains the bubble and safely dispatches an idea that threatened to burst it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is social media fuelling political polarisation?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  We also do it to ourselves. Everyone has someone in their life they’d rather mute. But they’re forced to coexist with them. Online is so appealing because you can find communities of like minded individuals. Then forget all about those other opinions you don’t like.

  You grow in this bubble as they grow in theirs. By the next time you’re forced to interact, you feel so alien and unpleasant to one another it’s confusing and frightening. Corporations are right there to sell you on a story about how the other side are demons destroying the world. We gobble it up.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Big Tech to EU: "Drop Dead"⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Oh thanks! That sounds fascinating.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Big Tech to EU: "Drop Dead"⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah! That’s precisely what I mean. Scooters is making an impact because they understand what people want and are providing a reasonable alternative that makes those kinds of people happy. They’re not just saying, Starbucks is bad, don’t go there.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Big Tech to EU: "Drop Dead"⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, put another way, make something controversial and people will pick sides and stop their thinking then and there. If anyone, including themselves, thinks “Starbucks sucks” then they’re the enemy and should be disproven.

  I’d argue there’s a great solution. Respect the people that go to Starbucks and their opinion. Understand it. And then, from a place of compassion and understanding see how you can help them. People respond a lot better to that. But I’ll admit that in this climate everyone is making things an us vs them controversy. So it’ll be hard when others are trying to create that divide and you are trying to bridge it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Big Tech to EU: "Drop Dead"⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I think the point being made here is that many people clearly enjoy what Starbucks offers. So, saying they suck is preaching to the choir. The only people listening to that are the people you aren’t trying to convince. If you want an impact, suggest an alternative that will make those people happy. To do that, start with an understanding of the value Starbucks brings them. Failing that, you are just signaling that your thinking isn’t for them. They’ll just ignore you and continue to happily give Starbucks their money.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The second matchup of the tournament⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Lions, Tigers, and Bears, no man!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Cyberpunk 2077 director thanks fans as the game hits a 95% positive review rating on Steam⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  What I think is astonishing to some people lately about Cyberpunk, is that they got most of their information from the popular channels on the internet. Despite its name, these channels (reddit r/all, Twitter, etc) are a (loud) minority of the actual opinions.

  Pretty much every one I talked to IRL about Cyberpunk was aware of the controversy, but had a much more nuanced opinion than I was seeing online. Many of them enjoyed it and weren’t really experiencing that many bugs (myself included). But this wasn’t an “allowed” opinion online. Anyone who said the game was enjoyable or they didn’t personally experience many bugs were attacked for being a CDPR fanboy (myself included) and down voted.