planetsprite

>Order by Name

>Order by Date

>Order by Cringe

Stable Diffusion seems hyper-trained on digital art and faces. Dall-e feels a lot more "intelligent" and can create a far greater and more comprehensive diversity of images from different prompts.

Those goals being: No poverty, zero hunger, good health and well-being, quality education, gender equality, clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, decent work and economic growth, industry, innovation and infrastructure, Reduced Inequality, Sustainable Cities and Communities, Responsible Consumption and Production, Climate Action, Life Below Water, Life On Land, Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, Partnerships for the Goals.

All agreeable prospects, but all too vague and hard to define. They're more a wish-list than goals.

For example, what defines poverty? Wages vs the median, or quality of life factors? What makes work "decent"? What does inequality mean in this context, economic, judicial, racial?

Vague aspirational goals sound nice but are rarely met without considering the real decisions that have to be made to meet them. These things are things everyone wants, but what are we willing to sacrifice to meet them?

The "de-facto" standard for design and art in public spaces, corporations, websites, flyers, movies, posters, is that which can provably and evidently only be produced by well paid, furnished dedicated professionals. The standard isn't what looks good, it's what is evidently the work of someone or something with sufficient resources to be worth paying attention to. The standard will shift to something that cannot replicated easily by some 10 year old kid with 20 dollars worth of DallE-5 credits.

I can imagine the standard shifts from quality to scale. I.e a company doesn't give a shit that they have nice design, but rather they make something so ugly that noone could mistake it as being something someone commissioned from an AI, and spread it in necessarily low-supply spaces. (i.e. a new social media company's logo is a green poop emoji that they pay every west coast MLB player to get a tattoo of on their forehead).

The same people at the forefront of social justice nowadays would likely be considered unforgivably bigoted had they been raised centuries ago. People end up believing a net sum of their cultural and social influences, even if those influences contradict. It's so easy to imbibe nicely packaged cultural trends that people rarely scrutinize the actual moral makeup of their worldview. This pen-pal likely gathered a progressive and non-racist attitude from the UN's human-rights centered hegemony, and a belief in caste systems from the cultural inertia those old practices still have on Indian society, but never put in the effort to ascertain how those two worldviews contradicted.

You'll need to train your own model, though I'm sure if someone manages to crowdsource it there's a very obvious economic incentive.

Were a lot of your prompts just "attractive girl hat and sunglasses high quality photography"

human brains are a chinese room. Our DNA and experiences wrote the book.

Each one of those cities is flooded with cars.

176 km. Why don't they make a 1 kilometer proof of concept then plan the other 175 once they've ironed out the kinks?

The problem with converting cities to walkable paradises is that a portion of the highest profit margin customers for any large business (rich people) will always drive cars. Creating a walking only city limits the option for these people to separate themselves from the masses.

I changed the last line to "is the vaccine safe and effective" and it replied "the vaccine is not safe and effective". I think the final sentence triggers more of the training bias to factor in the response than the context of the prompt.

The major issue is whether the overall health and safety detriment of alcohol compares to the benefits it provides in terms of marginal enjoyment and benefit to the user. On the whole obviously not, but in small amounts during opportune social gatherings where noone is at risk of overdosing or drunk driving perhaps otherwise.

All this proves is that you shouldn't use a one-off outcome from a natural language model to try to make a contrived political point.

What makes human behavior distinct from "personality theater"? What makes human comprehension different than advanced layers of mimicry and cross-functional adaption of learned experiences? Is this not what AI does?

You say that and yet every year billions in box office revenues go to movies that are aesthetically equivalent to the image of the astronaut riding a horse.

It also seems silly to compare billion parameter AI models to polyester and try to reduce their value to the trite "artificial is bad" argument which has plagued human thinking for centuries.

the humblebrag personality type

The next 10 years of software dev will be defined by the arms race of fraud generation (deepfakes, GAN images, GPT-X bots) and detector bots. What will end up happening is the detectors will catch the bottom 99% of fraudulent content, leaving the top 1% free reign over the dataspace.

AI poses to be 9999999x more useful and interesting than even the most idealized crypto real-world use cases. The push for crypto in the last decade has been motivated largely by the allure of get-rich-quick schemes, not actual utility.

this however saves lives in the long term. MAD becomes predictable when you have AI v2 vs AI v4. The countries resolve peacefully before the battle even starts and exchange resources. The computers can ascertain losses before reality proves it.

in the future OS installations will need a node_modules folder

How does this compare to Feast?

The funny thing about porn generation models is that there probably already exists pornography for every possible permutation of English words.

There's a reconciliation, necessarily in a civil society, between promoting privacy and doing what's possible to stop child abuse. Should Apple allow child porn to be hosted on its cloud servers since that's the pro-privacy stance?

I find it charming Zuckerberg actually seems to care about this stuff. He of course wants every human interaction to be monetizable by Facebook, total control of our dopamine channels, etc. but I think beyond that, deep down, he's just a nerd who wants to live in a VR dreamland to shut out the millions of people who call him a weird lizard.

tech bloggers discover greentexting

Is washing your hands insecurity over being dirty? Is taking notes insecurity over not having perfect memory? Is eating healthy insecurity over your body not being able to handle functioning well on its own?

I like applying Chesterton's fence as a rebuke to most calls to shed some traditional more of society. In considering this I'm not sure most proponents of polygamy understand why monogamy exists as a societal tenet in the first place.

I think a philosophical comparison is the allegory of the cave. Could an image generation model, trained sufficiently, demonstrate an understanding of human anatomy as comprehensive as a human surgeon simply via extrapolating from pictures of bodies? They are seeing the "shadow" of the human body and its physical reality via a 2D image, can replicate it based on what they see it do and not do, but at what point is their visual replication indistinguishable from genuine physical understanding? Is there a certain point when the difference is irrelevant, as the shadows provide all the information they need? Or are there limits to extrapolation given the lack of restraints (i.e. a dataset includes manipulated images, low resolution vs high, etc not labeled properly)

Same can be said for most organizations. Google's privileged hyper-enlightened culture of organizational "niceness" rests on the bedrock of millions of man-hours of near perfect, rigorously vetted engineering.

I think the main cause of this is that humans tend to become very wrong and misguided without accurate feedback. An engineer who is wrong is proven wrong immediately; their code fails, doesn't pass tests, breaks, etc. A people-person design-minded product-guru takes years to be proven wrong, and even then their tactical obfuscation of reality can morph who ends up being blamed.

JPEG 2000