I saw this video literally 30 minutes ago and thought the same thing. I'm relieved to see his own fans disagreeing with him. There is still hope. Its funny, minus requiring verification and stuff like that, he's circling towards nostr IMO. Maybe IRL over a beer, he could be convinced that nostr could be the solution.
Tbh I really don't care for zaps at all and I don't think most people do or will. There I said it. I like Bitcoin, I like using it but I just don't care for zaps.
I think a goal for humanity should be to ensure the universe is experienced by as many different life forms as possible. For us this translates to ensuring as few species as possible become extinct.
Recaptcha would have to become a NIP since all of this happens over websockets and not basic HTTP. And then nostr clients would need to add support for recaptcha.
I guess it depends how it all unfolds. We likely won't be around to say "I told you so" one way or the other haha
Sure but its not as simple as stating it. There is continued effort to make it distributed. A world where this technology exists is one where I imagine many other great technologies exist. Like ones to maneuver massive asteroids through space to bring them into stable orbits near celestial bodies flesh world people live on and can mine them. With that comes the power to destroy entire continents, planets. The digital people will need flesh world representatives to defend them and constantly ensure the safety and distributed-ness of the network. Distributed over many planets? Anyway, this will be a heavily trust based relationship. Idk to me it seems your outsourcing those concerns to pretend to live in this world, away from violence and the woes of flesh world but in reality, are still subject to it.
That seems like a bad idea. There will always be IRL humans or conscious beings who could shut everything down. You're at the mercy of their violence no?
How you experience art is not the same question as whether or not the output of an AI model is art.
It is interesting that ai generated images evokes those emotions in you. I find them souleless and same-y for the most part. But as you pointed out, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
But yes, to me what makes art is the human behind it or the experience of consuming it. Both can be art. But without both, you have products. Its why even in a distant or not so distant future where ai generated music is topping charts and many people are enjoying it, those same people are unlikely to go to a concert for such things. There will be some people that would of course and its interesting to imagine what an ai concert would look like but part of going to concerts nowadays is to support a band you love, feel the energy from them performing live, from the crowd, feeling the passion for the music they wrote ooze out of them. With ai generated music, you won't get that though consuming the songs may invoke similar feelings as it the ai generated image did for you.
I don't agree at all and I'm not sure our current understanding of the human brain is in line with what you're saying. Humans don't go about the world predicting the right word to say next. There is understanding of what was said to them to help formulate the response. Also the choice of words you use may change based on who you're talking to, the socio-economic context you're in, etc. There is certainly an element of memorization for learning language and even how we engage with the world but it is much more complex than simply predicting or curve fitting.
If human brains worked this way, GPT models would be much better than they are and wouldn't need millions of training data points and thousands of learning hours to mimic what we do. There are obviously very large differences in how we think and how these algorithms work.
I don't agree. The difference is humans are capable of creating something new. Being inspired by previous works. Currently, AI isn't creating something new because it doesn't think, reason, doesn't have lived experience, etc. It is an algorithm which given some inputs (the prompt) is predicting what is the most likely combination of pixels to output based the training set. Its why you ask a model produce a cartoon crab underwater and it gives you something reminiscent of Mr. krabs from sponge Bob (since that was part of the training set). You ask a human to do this and you will get wildly different results based on the person and their lived experience.
One day when ai is better I'll agree, but right now its hardly ai to begin with and more a fancy curve fitting algorithm.
Not to mention this argument feels like it misses the point: as a creator it feels so shitty knowing you built something and shared it on some platform only for the platform to use it to make money of your work. It may also be illegal, though thats a different story altogether. I don't think any amount of "well acshually all art is stolen content" will change that.
Lmao GPTo1 is just using the python scripts people built to chain prompts together in the background based on your initial prompt for tasking/agents (I e. Break down the steps, then make each step its own prompt, summarize the result, ask if it matches with original prompt, etc.). This is nothing new.
Dude what the hell are your replies? Most of them are completely off topic (e.g. cycling article, sjw meme, etc.). It seems nostr has a way bigger bot problem than I thought.
Fuck me this is awesome! Definitely going down a hot reload rabbit hole
Yeah actually that's exactly what the law says. Here's a link to the Australian government website summarizing the law: https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/publications/abhorrent-violent-material-act-fact-sheet
They explain what the definition of abhorrent content is:
"Abhorrent violent material is limited to very specific categories of the most egregious, violent audio, visual or audio-visual material produced by a perpetrator or their accomplice. The definition includes video, still images (including a series of still images) and audio recordings.
It must stream or record conduct where a person engages in a terrorist act (involving serious physical harm or death of another person), murders or attempts to murder another person, tortures another person, rapes another person or kidnaps another person (where the kidnapping involves violence or the threat of violence). This conduct is referred to as ‘abhorrent violent conduct’. The definition does not include material recording animated, re-enacted or fictionalised conduct."
I still don't agree with the law but this isn't about the ability to criticize a government at all.
Link? The link the one dude shared in this thread doesn't mention text content at all.
Where are you getting that you can no longer criticize the government from? Doesn't the law only target visual depictions of abhorrent content like terrorist acts? Don't get me wrong the law is dumb but I'm not seeing how this means they can't criticize the government.
God I fucking hate JIRA: I get an email about a merge request to review. Click on the link: no info in the MR description but there's a link to a JIRA issue. I click the link: no info but there's a link to a gitlab issue. Click the link: no info but there's a link to a different JIRA issue but I don't have access to it. #dev
A book I disliked and I assume is written more for men is Shogun by James Clavell. The characters don't feel like real human beings but more like embodiements of certain ideas. And it focuses heavily on tactics (makes sense considering the author is a vet). But then I absolutely love ASOIF and I find George R R Martin focuses more on characters and stories rather than descriptions. Idk if this helps. BTW I'm a man.