Idk, life. Like I’m a big fan of scifi books. If I wrote one myself, do I need to get permission, financially compensate and credit every author who’s book I read they had inspired me? If I use online resources to learn to draw do I need to ask their permission every time I doodle? Is parody theft? Is modding theft?
I’m not sure how you think machine learning works
Well since I have a masters in AI and robotics, and I’m a principle developer at a company that uses computer vision for medical applications, I would say I have at least a basic grasp of the concept.
but I can tell you there is no actual “learning” involved.
That’s a very philosophical debate, lol
What it produces is a direct result of the data (stolen work) it’s trained on.
Factually not true. The algorithm that actually produces the art has no knowledge whatsoever of the original training data. All it knows how to do is denoise an image. It’s only the second algorithm that has any connection to the training data, and even then it doesn’t store any data on it directly. And the only connection between the 2 is the second algorithm telling the first how closely the denoised image matches the prompts. (More advanced programs will do more advanced things obviously, but that’s the general concept of stable diffusion.)
If you genuinely think a machine is capable of producing original art you’re attributing human traits to AI
Again, a very philosophical argument. And I think you’re making that argument as an appeal to emotion rather than actually trying rebuke what I’m saying.
Meanwhile two comments ago…
Me pointing out the flaws in other people’s arguments is not the same as me myself going on a moral crusade.
If I was wrong on any topic I’d love to be enlightened as to why but your arguments so far have boiled down to insults, strawmans and “no, you’re actually doing the thing that you called me out for doing!”
Well it’s hard to give you a good argument, when you don’t make any actual arguments to begin with when you’re just making strawman arguments and arguing semantics.
I would be heavily considering if the opposing party has a point instead of doubling down on the third grade argument tactics.
Would it be rude to point out the continuing hypocrisy?
Ignoring the fact you havent made any factual arguments, would it be rude to point out your comment history in turn?
Even basic LLMs can take in context of your entire conversation history. Not that a braindead luddite would actually know anything about AI.
But ya know, keep being an insufferable cunt because people use a computer program you don’t like, like the fucking loser you are.
Yup, sure sounds like you have a master in AI and robotics when you have to harass people & call them insufferable cunts for disagreeing with the ethics behind what you apparently study. Obviously you’re definitely not morally grandstanding in the slightest.
Hope lying on the internet works out for you tho ✌️
You whine about how I argue, so I give you a solid argument, explaining to you the basics of AI imagine generation, how that relates to your argument and why it it means what you said is factually not true.
Then you just completely fucking ignore it, and look through my replies to find me saying bad words to someone and act like that proves me wrong somehow.
Because your only other option is to concede you don’t know how AI works and that my point is actually correct. But since that would get in the way of the “AI bad” circlejerk you physically can’t even comprehend the idea.
when you have to harass people & call them insufferable cunts for disagreeing with the ethics
And then you even have to lie to make it sound worse. I’m not harassing someone for disagreeing with me about the ethics of AI. Hell I would LOVE to have an actual conversation about AI ethics instead of having people call me a literal Nazi for using generative AI, I insulted a guy because he insulted me.
Obviously you’re definitely not morally grandstanding in the slightest.
Litterally I’m not. You guys are the one taking the moral high horse argument here, me refuting it and pointing out your blatant hypocrisy is not grandstanding. All you are doing here is the “I know you are, but what am I?” Arguing that you have been accusing me of.
Now, if you would kindly either come up with some sort of coherent counter argument to the points I made before, admit you don’t know wtf you’re talking about, or at very least shut the fuck up, that would be great.
![[Rusty Creates] 'Artists'](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ee6ccbcc-d001-4b28-a88f-d39c2b75f860.png){kind=link}
Not directly no.
Idk, life. Like I’m a big fan of scifi books. If I wrote one myself, do I need to get permission, financially compensate and credit every author who’s book I read they had inspired me? If I use online resources to learn to draw do I need to ask their permission every time I doodle? Is parody theft? Is modding theft?
Well since I have a masters in AI and robotics, and I’m a principle developer at a company that uses computer vision for medical applications, I would say I have at least a basic grasp of the concept.
That’s a very philosophical debate, lol
Factually not true. The algorithm that actually produces the art has no knowledge whatsoever of the original training data. All it knows how to do is denoise an image. It’s only the second algorithm that has any connection to the training data, and even then it doesn’t store any data on it directly. And the only connection between the 2 is the second algorithm telling the first how closely the denoised image matches the prompts. (More advanced programs will do more advanced things obviously, but that’s the general concept of stable diffusion.)
Again, a very philosophical argument. And I think you’re making that argument as an appeal to emotion rather than actually trying rebuke what I’m saying.
Me pointing out the flaws in other people’s arguments is not the same as me myself going on a moral crusade.
Well it’s hard to give you a good argument, when you don’t make any actual arguments to begin with when you’re just making strawman arguments and arguing semantics.
Would it be rude to point out the continuing hypocrisy?
Ignoring the fact you havent made any factual arguments, would it be rude to point out your comment history in turn?
Yup, sure sounds like you have a master in AI and robotics when you have to harass people & call them insufferable cunts for disagreeing with the ethics behind what you apparently study. Obviously you’re definitely not morally grandstanding in the slightest.
Hope lying on the internet works out for you tho ✌️
It’s so fucking predictable at this point.
You whine about how I argue, so I give you a solid argument, explaining to you the basics of AI imagine generation, how that relates to your argument and why it it means what you said is factually not true.
Then you just completely fucking ignore it, and look through my replies to find me saying bad words to someone and act like that proves me wrong somehow.
Because your only other option is to concede you don’t know how AI works and that my point is actually correct. But since that would get in the way of the “AI bad” circlejerk you physically can’t even comprehend the idea.
And then you even have to lie to make it sound worse. I’m not harassing someone for disagreeing with me about the ethics of AI. Hell I would LOVE to have an actual conversation about AI ethics instead of having people call me a literal Nazi for using generative AI, I insulted a guy because he insulted me.
Litterally I’m not. You guys are the one taking the moral high horse argument here, me refuting it and pointing out your blatant hypocrisy is not grandstanding. All you are doing here is the “I know you are, but what am I?” Arguing that you have been accusing me of.
Now, if you would kindly either come up with some sort of coherent counter argument to the points I made before, admit you don’t know wtf you’re talking about, or at very least shut the fuck up, that would be great.