I'm sure you don't care, but if you sound like a combination pocket-mulching, militant-vegan, cycling purist, those are the the only people who are going to hear what you have to actually say.
That might be your target market, in which case, congrats i suppose.
That level of condescension and pretension is pretty difficult to overcome, especially in a text only format, intentional or not.
The "small steps" comment was me.
The shift described in the overton window is the shift in the perception of normal.
If 5 steps down are taken, then the window shifts, followed by another 5 downward steps, you're still down 10 steps from where you started.
Well, it seems people are upset that I wasnt receptive to a non sequitur and it seems like I won't be getting an actual answer to my question.
Doesn't mean I have to be rude and perpetuate that behaviour so here is my answer.
Do you think the Nazis killing around 800,000 Roma was natural selection?
Yes
Do you think the Tuskegee experiments were natural selection?
Also yes
If you didn't answer my question because you didn't understand why I was asking I'll explain.
Please note, your question was not about correctness or morality it was natural vs artificial, if you want to ask about morals and ethics at least mention the words in the question.
We are part of nature so the things we do are also natural, despite our cognitive differences from other species I think that to consider ourselves somehow outside the bounds of nature is the height of arrogance.
The relevance in this context, is that AI is a technology being aggressively forced on people by the most powerful in society.
Agreed, another in a long line of attempts to control the general populace by taking something we already use and monopolising control to sell it back to us (as long as we do as we're told)
Knowledge in this case.
Eugenicists love to appeal to nature to justify their actions.
I think this might be a general point and not aimed at me specifically, but I'll answer it just in case.
I'm not trying to use nature to excuse atrocities, as part of our natural evolution we've constructed these concepts as tools for our societies, so to use "being natural" as a way to somehow divorce ourselves from them is a nonsensical argument.
You don’t seem to understand a lot of my reply, let’s see if we can clear some stuff
I would argue i understood your reply fine, i wasn't arguing against the merit (or lack thereof) of your points, only that they weren't related to the message you were replying to.
The post was complaining about the 2nd amendment folks not getting upset that ICE was treading on people’s rights
Not really, i already provided a rough translation, it seems we aren't going to agree on interpretation so let's just agree to disagree on this one.
… Why would they? Why would you expect any other group to defend your rights.
A somewhat valid point.. in a situation where it applies, alas, it does not in this case.
You don’t seem to understand what satire is.
I understand the post was satire, with an edge of actual outrage, or at least that's my interpretation.
Given that you also seem to recognise it as satire, it seems odd you'd go out of your way to reply in such a serious tone, but you do you.
Even more strange is that you'd argue against positions never taken, but we've already been over that.
Either the original poster was truly upset the 2nd amendment folks were not defending other people’s rights. Or he was trying to make a satirical point outlining that 2nd Amendment people had no intention of defending people’s rights and just wanted guns. I think given the context it is the latter. Satire is great when trying to convince others that the other party is wrong I.E. Gun rights advocates were possibly lying
All of that is still based on an points never raised in the original reply, see my original translation.
I’m simply pointing out that when there is need on the left to defend yourselves with firearms you’ve undermined your case. Look up videos with armed protesters or what the Black Panthers are doing to repel ICE. The police and ICE are a lot less willing to deploy excessive force or even to engage with armed individuals.
That's a more complicated discussion and i don't disagree on some of those points, but it still doesn't apply here because there was no reference to defense of gun rights, simply pointing out the hypocrisy of using a position to argue that you wouldn't take in the actual situation, see my original translation.
I literally quoted Carl Marx what makes you think I’m not on the left? Go left enough and guns are back on the table.
I made no assumption of your place on the political spectrum, i stand by my original reply.
Though i will concede i did make it seem like it was aimed at you directly and that was not my intention, my bad.
TL; DR;
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.
5g microchipped psuedo-butter, outstanding.
and before you bring out the “but everyone i know all says the same”, that’s still anecdotal, it’s what anecdotal means.
"We have a and everyone I’ve spoken to that tried the reports "
Again, i'm not doubting your understanding the experience of you or your acquaintances, i'm saying its anecdotal, a vanishingly small sample size and not necessarily indicative of a general position.
In my setup only three of them are altered from the default values.
"privacy.resistFingerprinting" is the one i was talking about specifically, which works for me in the scenarios detailed in my response.
It's been a while since i setup this install but i know i used the arkenfox scripts as a baseline.
I have no idea how much deviation i have for the default baseline so YMMV greatly.
I only mentioned that setting because it's one i use to fix my specific problems and it might help as a starting point.
Did someone claim self defence?
Perhaps the video cuts out before that happened?
Do you have the full vid?