Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit and then some time on kbin.social.
So if I genuinely believe I can use my psychic powers to explode peoples’ hearts, I should be up on attempted murder charges whenever I glare at someone with intent to kill?
Given that in a basically identical case someone linked to elsewhere in this thread no murder-related charges were filed for trying to open an airplane door like this, I suspect that wouldn’t be the outcome here either.
Surprised to hear that my graphics card consumes enough electricity to power a small town for two months in the second it takes for it to generate an image. I’m getting incredibly good electricity rates if so.
The robot isn’t preventing anyone from also painting a picture.
Yes, so? All I was disputing was the issue of whether they’re “ecologically sound.” They’re fine now, they don’t consume massive amounts of energy. Use them or ignore them as you wish.
Indeed. And there’s a future update for Ethereum being worked on to implement a “state expiry” system, which means data wouldn’t be stored forever unless you actually paid for it to be. I’ve been quite impressed with Ethereum’s continued development over the years, in contrast to Bitcoin which basically ossified.
The handle will rip off the door before it gets anywhere close to opening.
I am specifically addressing the comment:
Opening the door during flight is attempted murder of everyone on board
It is not attempted murder. The case you link to backs me up:
Gapco is charged with interference with a flight crew, and attempted damage to an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States.
Why no attempted murder charge, if it’s attempted murder?
No, but it does mean that calling it attempted murder is a bit strong. They were trying to do something that’s physically impossible for them to do. It’d be like calling it attempted murder if I went up to someone and tried to use my psychic powers to explode their heart.
And is there any risk of people turning these kinds of models around and using them to generate images?
There isn’t really much fundamental difference between an image detector and an image generator. The way image generators like stable diffusion work is essentially by generating a starting image that’s nothing but random static and telling the generator “find the cat that’s hidden in this noise.”
It’ll probably take a bit of work to rig this child porn detector up to generate images, but I could definitely imagine it happening. It’s going to make an already complicated philosophical debate even more complicated.
Ethereum, the blockchain that the vast majority of NFTs are based on, switched to proof-of-stake over two years ago. It doesn’t use significant amounts of energy any more. So there isn’t even the “more ecologically sound” distinction here.
Pluto’s atmosphere has been studied since the 1980s, using spectroscopy and stellar occultation (watching starlight flicker as Pluto passed in front of it). It wasn’t a surprise when New Horizons observed it.
The Darvaza gas crater is a hole in Turkmenistan that’s leaking natural gas and is on fire. I’m quite sure they don’t have a “poet laureate”, it’s literally just a hole in the ground.
But even if it was some metropolis, yeah, he’d be just some guy.
You can get whatever result you want if you’re able to define what “better” means.
Why publish books of it, then?
The whole point of poetry is that it’s an original expression of another human.
Who are you to decide what the “point” of poetry is?
Maybe the point of poetry is to make the reader feel something. If AI-generated poetry can do that just as well as human-generated poetry, then it’s just as good when judged in that manner.
I do get the sense sometimes that the more extreme anti-AI screeds I’ve come across have the feel of narcissistic rage about them. The recognition of AI art threatens things that we’ve told ourselves are “special” about us.
Indeed, there are whole categories of art such as “found art” or the abstract stuff that involves throwing splats of paint at things that can’t really convey the intent of the artist because the artist wasn’t involved in specifying how it looked in the first place. The artist is more like the “first viewer” of those particular art pieces, they do or find a thing and then decide “that means something” after the fact.
It’s entirely possible to do that with something AI generated. Algorithmic art goes way back. Lots of people find graphs of the Mandelbrot Set to be beautiful.
According to the AI art detector I ran that cave art through there’s a 98% chance that it was AI generated, so we can’t trust it’s accuracy.
Hey now, America just had an election to decide whether vaccines work and they decided that they don’t. Respect democracy!
Did you not read the comments I was responding to? They were specifically about opening the door.