Lol it’s hilarious watching the Lemmy community tie themselves in cognitively dissonant knots trying to decide whether they hate AI more or whether they hate capitalist ownership and hoarding of information more.
You guys all go off just as hard at the piracy community here, right?
People who criticize AI seem to fall into 3 camps:
Bandwagon jumpers who just see people they like criticizing AI and regurgitate what they hear.
People who reject it out of principle because it would break their world view to consider the possibility that human beings could just be machines with no free will.
People who reject it because theyve seen capitalism use previous advances in automation to enrich the working class and entrench their power.
I would just tend to group those as two sub camps under the third, anti-capitalist, camp that I mentioned, but I can see reason them to put them on the same hierarchical level.
Most of the problems with AI are with it accelerating the already ongoing effects of capitalism.
And if I send that image to a friend and make them spill their lunch laughing, and then they don’t send it to anyone and that’s the end of its effect, what harm have I caused the world?
Why should those artists be able to prevent me from recreating their art? What if I don’t use AI but use photoshop and different digital tools and complex algorithms to make that meme? Why is that different from AI?
Information should not be hoarded, and capitalist systems of restrictions and ownership are the wrong way to manage it. Full Stop. The fact that AI is exposing what a lie IP is, is not AI’s fault as a technology.
I’m sure we weren’t talking about private sharings before.
Based on what? You brought up stealing information like it’s a bad thing, I pointed out that information shouldn’t be legally restricted from use when it costs nothing to be used.
Simple, it is focusing on ONE specific artwork, instead of millions.
No, the algorithms that Photoshop lets me use to manipulate images are the same algorithms used by everyone else, everywhere around the world. Try trillions, not millions.
Oh, and also it is more energy efficient.
Yeah, use your CPU to decode a 4K video stream and tell me how much power you use.
There’s a reason companies like Apple and Microsoft have been pushing NPUs.
Lmfao no one is “hoarding” “information” in the case of drawings. You want to recreate their art so damn much? You absolutely can! Here is the actual tool you need to do so!
Yes, you literally are in the same paragraph. You are telling me that I am not allowed to recreate them, unless I use the exact same specific tool that the original artist used. I presume I’m also not allowed to take any art classes that the original artists wouldn’t have been exposed to either right? Why can’t I recreate the painting using chalk? Or ASCII art? Why do you get to decide how I can recreate it?
And how is you telling me I can’t recreate it, not hoarding information?
And btw, you aren’t “recreating” anything when you input a few words into your “eyy-ayy”. You aren’t spending any effort to do so, it is all computer’s doing. So you cannot claim it as “yours”. Full stop.
Same as every Photoshop and After Effects tool based on algorithms right?
Or more precisely, what’s different about being assisted by advanced computational photometry algorithms that you need a PhD to comprehend, and being assisted by advanced machine learning algorithms that you need a PhD to comprehend?
Artworks are not “information”, and you surely can access em, viewing and downloading and all.
Lmao, bro, how do you think that digital art got to your computer? Over the art super highway that we built seperate from the rest of the internet?
The idea was to “use the tools artists are using” but you managed to reinterpret it as “you can only use the one single tool the artist uses”. :V
And what makes a large language model algorithm different from an advanced Photoshop algorithm?
Your restrictions are arbitrary and based on nothing.
No one is saying thay you cannot recreate it, I’m just stating the matter of fact that you aren’t recreating anything when you enter a prompt on a text box.
Literally by the definition of the story being discussed, yes you are. You are recreating an or many artists’ styles and using those to create a new image.
You want to be treated like an artist and not a thief? Put in the effort. It is simple as that.
…said every dumb old fart about musicians using computers to sample other songs
It turns out they were wrong and you can create new art from pieces of existing art.
See above, entering prompt on a text box is NOT the same as using the tools given on a drawing/photo editing program.
LMFAO bro, you can’t just scream “I DECLARE THEYRE NOT THE SAME” like you’re Michael Scott and expect it to be true. Name what makes using one algorithm different from the other, don’t worry we’ll wait.
Also there are lots of tutorials on how to use these so called “PhD requiring tools” out there lol. Once again, put in the effort.
I said it takes a PhD to understand the underlying algorithm, as in you and most people using those tools would never ever be able to come up with that algorithm on your own; as in, youre getting assistance from a highly advanced algorithm running on the most complex machines ever made, but you think that’s fine and art, but using a slightly different algorithm is suddenly stealing and can’t be art.
Again, your distinction is junk. People call you a luddite because you are one. You’re railing against an algorithm like it’s evil instead of just a new piece of technology that can be used for bad, or good.
Answer: there’d be far less software in the world, it would all be more archaic and less useful, and our phones and laptops would just sit at 2% utilization most of the time.
There’s an opportunity cost to everything, including fussing over whether that value can be stored as an int instead of a double to save 8 bits of space. High level languages let developers express their feature and business logic faster, with fewer bugs, and much lower ongoing maintenance costs.
The problem with philosophy in terms of understanding the bigger questions in life is that advanced physics (edit: and neuroscience, chemistry, math/stats, etc) has answered many questions that were previously in the realm of philosophy, and you can’t really understand what’s possible in reality / what constraints there are on abstract philosophy without understanding advanced physics and science.
Of course the problem with advanced physics is that it takes so much time and effort to learn and understand thoroughly that you often end up as a not great communicator to the average person.
Or, to be cheeky: physics aims to take the largest and most complicated concepts in the universe and explain them in the simplest possible language, and philosophy is the opposite.
Philosophers literally invented formal logic to help them answer questions. Yes they are trying to answer questions and constrain the possible answer space where they can’t.
I would argue that it absolutely applies to both existentialism and epistemology. Epistemologists frequently concern themselves with questions about the limits of human knowledge and understanding without actually going there themselves.
Sure, but at a fundamental level philosophers are not just sitting there asking questions with no purpose. They’re still seeking new understanding and information which is a form of answering questions.
Much like how martial arts is no longer as useful for self defence in a world with handguns, but instead makes for very good exercise and social connections, and is just fun.
Except that a key difference is that no one gives out PhDs for martial arts. Yes you can get a black belt, signalling that you are as skilled as the top tier martial artists (I assume, I don’t do martial arts), but you cannot write a peer reviewed paper and get a PhD on karate because that would require learning something new about it and publishing it.
Philosophy in how the common person relates to it may just be as a mental kata that helps to improve their cognition and emotional regulation, but philosophy as a profession and academic discipline is still very much concerned with trying to answer questions and find ways of constraining the infinite to relevant possible answers.
The point I’m making is that philosophers are trying to answer questions and if they weren’t they wouldn’t be getting PhDs, since a PhD is not given for just knowing a lot about Philosophy, but for discovering something new in the field.
For 3D Modelling / Printing, if you have even a little bit of programming / scripting ability, OpenSCAD is amazing.
It’s basically just a small scripting language for generating 3D objects and performing 3D modelling operations and its so handy to be able to store important info as precise variables, and create new objects and cuts and stuff just with for loops and if statements.
I use the web version a lot of the time, and while it could use a little work, it’s pretty amazing.
No, I honestly just started here, and started playing around with the example, and then started turning that into what I wanted and googling when I needed to: ochafik.com/openscad2/
The theory is simple: instead of buying a household item or a piece of clothing or some equipment you might use once or twice, you take it out and return it.
You cut the first piece, realize you actually need a different type of saw for the next cut, it’s booked out, now your project is indefinitely delayed.
They are similar because in both cases you are sacrificing resiliency (multiple copies of a resource), for efficiency (a singular shared copy).
A tool library is still a great idea / resource for when you’re doing a project and need one weird tool that youll never use again, but most people who do any real amount of DIY over their lives will want their own set of tools that cover most of the bases.
Counterpoint: You go to the store to buy the saw you think you’ll need, come home, cut the first piece – boom, same realization. Same time-sink to go back to the store. I don’t think that’s a concern unique to tool libs.
Yes, except that when your buying tools, that only happens once. The next project that happens you have that tool sitting there waiting for you.
Well, yeah. We’re talking more expensive things that you only need for one project, or maybe a couple of times. Not the screwdriver set that you use for everything from box-cutting to adjusting the screws on your cabinet doors when they seem wonky.
By basic DIY tools I don’t just mean screw driver, I mean probably something along the lines of: screwdriver set, socket set, hammer, wrench set, drill / driver, circular saw, multitool, jigsaw, tape measures, clamps, level, plus basic painting tools, basic drywalling tools, basic electrical tools.
Happens once per thread (lemmy.cafe)
Mozilla confirms it will add Tab Groups, Vertical Tabs, Profile Management to Firefox (connect.mozilla.org)
Map of Drug Cartels in Mexico 2024 (lemmy.world)
Nope. No. (lemmy.world)
Oh no, I'm being converted... (lemmy.world)
50 million rendered polygons vs one spicy 4.2MB boi (lemmy.world)
Tale as old as time (lemmy.world)
What open-source software would you like more people to know about?
How rental ‘libraries of things’ have become the new way to save money (www.theguardian.com)
The theory is simple: instead of buying a household item or a piece of clothing or some equipment you might use once or twice, you take it out and return it.
Arrowhead CEO on negative reviews: "I guess it's warranted. Sorry everyone for how this all transpired. I hope we will make it up and regain the trust by providing a continued great game experience." (twitter.com)
https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/4dddfb0c-e6d2-4ad8-b1c8-2a2c89d6f912.png