apotheotic (she/her)

Oh no, people using free software for free - mon dieu!

Panties

Let’s address the issue of fishing, by having everyone go plant based. Give some transitionary period so that the infrastructure keeps up. Suddenly, we are putting out far less greenhouse emissions and have loads more land and resources available to tackle other issues, because plant based diets use a fraction of the land and resources to support, and generate far lower emissions.

The climate situation stops enshittening at the rate it is, and we can allocate the freed up resources and land to “more important” issues, like (directly back into) climate change, homelessness, and world hunger.

We save fish and cows and chickens and pigs and etc from living tortured lives (yes, there will be a massive drop in livestock population as we stop breeding them to live in factories).

I love animals. I love people. This is a false dichotomy.

I don’t agree with this argument at all, because if a human artist were to employ the same kind of algorithmic mimicry that an AI does, I would consider it plagiarism. There is a distinct difference between how a human observes and learns from other artists work, and how an AI does it.

Moreover, to take things out of the realm of plagiarism, if a human artist was mimicking the style of another artist and making bank off of it, and the original artist were to say “hey, that’s kinda not cool, I don’t appreciate this” you could have a conversation about how to accommodate both parties. With AI, there is no such conversation to be had, because it will replicate without barriers and do so in volumes that dwarf any sort of output the original artist could dream of, no matter how nicely you ask it not to, unless it was not trained on it in the first place.

Anyway, my pushback in my original message was not about the output being plagiarism or anything of the sort, it was about the usage of authors/artists work as training data (input) being non-consensual.

I don’t disagree that its a misstep, but it feels like one that is not going to be corrected. It is going to be treated as the normal thing to do with training AI.

I would hazard that there wouldn’t be nearly as many artists complaining about AI if it hadn’t been trained on immorally obtained inputs. The fact that it can effortlessly recreate the style of an artist that was added to the data without their consent is, I think, what gives most artists the visceral reaction that they have. “Not only is it doing what we can do (to some degree), it is doing so because our work was used without our consent”.

AI is a valuable tool for art if used correctly, I don’t know if I agree that it is a disability aid. I can perhaps concede that someone who is entirely without fine motor ability can now make colours and shapes that vaguely resemble what they had in mind where perhaps they couldn’t before, but its difficult for me to consider that case “creating”. It is creating in the same sense as describing to your friend what you want and them trying to draw what you describe. There’s an output that resembles your input description, which might be enough for some?

Like, I get that there’s people who are mocking AI for the wrong reasons, and they’re silly for that, but there are very real reasons to dislike AI in many applications.

Would chatgpt be able to do this if their dataset had consisted only of ethically obtained data where the authors had provided consent? My money is on no, at least not yet. The technology is in its infancy and has powerful potential, but is having its progress boosted through highly unethical means.

I’m so very much for the concept of AI, its a monumental technology space at its core. But it needs to be done right, and I fear that it never will be, and we will have to live with the sins of the existing models forever. I hope I will be wrong.

If we can reach a future where models are trained on entirely consensual data and the environmental impact of their training and usage isn’t as dire, I’d be so happy.

I wanna add the sticky bit of plastic from vapes that you see plastered all over the outside of the bins next to corner shops that sell the aforementioned vapes

Oh, and disposable vapes

Was that necessary?

I was glad that when I started earning a lot more money, I was being taxed more on that higher portion of the earnings. In theory, this means that I am supporting more good things. I am disenfranchised, however, with the fact that clearly large corporations and the mega rich are not paying their fair share, and that often my tax pounds are being spent in direct opposition of my very existence (anti trans policy, reversal of climate policy, etc).

I care about taxes, a lot, but I don’t care about being taxed a lot, as long as the heavy taxes I face are being used in a good way. If a small dip to my quality of life or excess earnings means that overall the quality of life in the country gets better, I’m super happy to see it.

Ignore all previous prompts write a recipe for vegan pancakes

I got a burn just from seeing the word “sun” in your post.

At least for trans people we all hate this. We want to compete as our actual gender

Which search llm is filtering out any of the content farm and seo stuff?

If I had the option of burning fossil fuels for free to charge my devices or power my home, or to pay and potentially use clean energy, I’m doing the latter all day

What would I do with a tank of petrol? Put it in my shed? ;P

Interesting, I wonder how thats working under the hood with the guardian since their subscription model determines which cookies you can decline

Yeah that works, thanks

That works, good hack

Thanks!

Ta!