Senal

What do mean by "cognitive empathy"?

Damn, the density of bad faith in that single sentence might collapse into some sort of fallacy black hole.

Congrats

TL; DR;

• Using bad analogies to explain things that are already confusing helps no-one
• AI is currently a marketing term used to push LLM's
• Tools used appropriately garner satisfactory results.

people need to specify that they’re against generative LLMs, like Chat-bots or slop-generators, not “all AI”.

I agree, how does throwing out bad comparisons relate to that ?

There was just a thread on Twitter where a company showcased an amazing tool for animators - where you, for example, prepare your walking/sitting/standing animations, but then instead of motion-capturing or manually setting the scene up, you just define two keyframes - the starting and the ending position of the character… and then their AI picks the appropriate animations, merges between them and animates the character walking from one position to the other.

It’s a phenomenal tool for creatives, but because the term “AI” appeared, the company got shat on by random people.

if you are talking about cascadeur or something similar, that doesn't use an LLM afaict, it's based on ML Trained on their own internal data (or so they say).

I don't disagree that tools used in a way that plays to their strength are useful.

People are often conflating AI with LLM's, which makes sense for the average person, because that's how it's been marketed and sold.

LLM's aren't even really AI but here we are.

No. All generative graphical slop AIs and generic chat-bot LLMs have been trained on large corpus of data that has been obtained by various sketchy and illegitimate means.

I was very specific in my wording, but as i said, i could be wrong, if you can point to any big commercial LLM’s that don't adhere to my classification i will concede the point.

THAT’S the major difference.

I mean, yes, that's what i said.

So i stand my my conclusion that in the context you laid out, Photoshop isn't a good comparison to most, if not all of the current tools that would be considered AI.

So, he basically says something that directly contradicts what you’re saying - he prefers the generative slop machines, than tools that actually help developers or artists.

I could be wrong but half of that statement was sarcasm.

I basically read it as:

So I’m gonna execute the code of someone who doesn’t know the first thing about coding on my computer? Great! I’d rather have AI art and human code.

Running code someone vibed up without understanding what it's doing, it stupid If i had to pick one way around or the other, I’d rather have AI art(which is this case is significantly less of a security risk) and human code (which should potentially be of a higher quality)

I think the fundamental misunderstanding here is how the term AI is used.

None of these things are really intelligent and LLM's are predictive semi-hallucination machines cobbling together best guesses at what's supposed to come next in the sequence.

The way i personally see it is that the latest gen "AI" stuff is basically sitting on LLM's in some capacity. Area recognition, language, image/code generation etc.

Anything else is just normal(perhaps smart) tools, using algorithms of some kind, ML etc

Weak comparisons help no-one, photoshop is nothing like LLM's

All of the big commercial LLM's (without exception afaik) have been trained on a large corpus of data that has been obtained by various sketchy and illegitimate means. (some legitimate as well).

That's the major difference between the two.

If you are using a model that has only been trained on legally obtained data, disregard this point.

I'm not even against competent tool use of LLM's but please use better arguments.

I detailed my thoughts and arguments, feel free to address those directly.

if you want to ignore most of the reply to argue against a stance i wasn't taking there's not much of a conversation to be had here.

The hyperbolic response is "look at what all the countries without weekly/daily mass shooting are doing and copy them"

In reality it'd need to be something culturally systemic, the removal of guns as a cultural touchstone over generations, with laws slowly applied to back up that effort.

Address the root causes of this kind of violence, quality of life, poverty, mental health in general, Provide mental health support and improve conditions so that less support is needed.

and that'd only be scratching the surface.

To address your specific response, banning guns outright probably would bring these numbers down and if these specific numbers going down was the ultimate (and only) goal then that would make sense, but in reality there would probably be significant issues cause by such a move.

Not to say it isn't viable, just that it's not clear cut.

I'd assume the argument is the same kind of one made for sanctions, you restrict the interaction with the country to indicate you are displeased with some action(s) that government has taken.

It's not a good argument , mind you.

The alternative is to stop doing business in places where laws are being used to restrict the games available.

Don't get me wrong, fuck the russian government and the horse they rode in on, but unless you have a defend-able reason that russia should be singled out in this context your argument is emotional rhetoric and little else.

You could perhaps narrow that down to a subset of applicable laws, but i'd lay good money that any group/type of laws you pick are not go only contain russia and still be able to be considered a reasonable argument.

Not a defense, but aren't a lot of the steam games at least runnable without the front end?

Not as much as GOG obviously, but some ?

Pointing out potential hypocrisy isn't homophobic, that you think it is, says a lot more about you than them.

So porn involves copyright, a legally distinct category of activity.

Which i did in fact already know, i didn't realise you were referencing something that you hadn't mentioned in your reply.

I'll assume you don't actually have a basis for claiming that prostitution involves copyright then.

I get that it sounds like splitting hairs, but we are commenting on something with a legal context, the legal distinctions are relevant.

Taking a step back: this is c/declineintocensorship not c/piracy. The fact that these are copyrighted means these pictures had even more protections than if not, legally speaking. Even ignoring the sensitive nature of these pictures, it is reasonable for the owner of content (the actresses and or producers) to enforce their copyright protections on these.

Indeed, as seems to be the case here.

Sorry who are you?

My username is right above my reply.

Why does suddenly everyone on the internet want to get a word in edge-wise as soon as I say something even mildly feminist?

Is your question why are people replying to your statement in a public discourse on a public forum?

I’m not sure I’m equipped to explain that to you if you can’t figure that out from context.

Further, a lot of the replies aren't actually disagreeing with your stance, they are disagreeing with the poor arguments you are using to try and justify your stance.

Pick arguments that aren't full of holes and you'll probably get less pushback.

Literally none of my other comments get this much hate, but when I suggest that a person doesn’t have an innate right to someone’s nudes tons of random people from all over the internet have to show up in my inbox with their take. Ffs guys it’s a bad look

Literally none of what i said referenced any of that, you made a claim that was logically suspect, i made a comment regarding that claim, none of what i said referenced literally any other point you have made.

I suspect that if you were commenting on something with equal levels of visibility with the same logically sketchy arguments you'd get just as much pushback.

More controversial topics get more replies, that's how the internet works.

edit:ordering