Seeing that you replied to a comment that's almost a week old, I wouldn't be surprised if you do.
I really hope no one reading thinks this redditor behavior is as cool as the author does. Dude seemingly can't get the point they're arguing against, so this is all that's left, I guess.
Yeah buddy, this is to sleep better at night. You've shown you're not stopping the high-school tier debate club logic and the goofy-ass mic-drops.
Sure, ignore him being pals with the homophobe CEO and welcoming Mr. genocide because he made cool tech. Because being a developer puts you above mere ethical issues, and saying "I'm apolitical" makes you immune to criticism.
And lets ignore that it's been changed since. People 'never' change, so lets fuck up their entire career and public image for life.
Andreas hasn't changed, that's half the point of my comment. The PR was sent by someone else, merged by someone else, disguised with a different title, and all after his departure announcement. Someone approached him about it later, and Andreas himself admits he hasn't changed his mind. Did you read nothing? Where's this change you're so confident about?
And I'm not ruining his career, that's absurd. I couldn't manage, even if I wanted to. Look at the niche forum we're in. Even so, I've defended his work, his skill, the very idea of Ladybird, the need for more browser engines, even the tooling. But unless people shut up and never criticize him, it's just not enough for you.
If you think that comment outweighs all the positive impacts Andreas is making, that's your prerogative. I'm not interested in holding everyone up to such high expectations.
"Don't unnecessarily chum up to homophobes and genocide defenders" aren't high expectations. They're ridiculously low-hanging fruit, considering our history. Absolutely pathetic excusing of his actions.
It's a little complicated, but it doesn't look good. If you're interested, I wrote a comment about it.
didn't read, easy block, shoulda done this sooner
That can be AI depending on how broad your definition is, but it's not GenAI, which is the main concern here.
You can now run optimized open source diffusion models on an iPhone, and it's been possible for years.
Games aren't background processes. Even today, triple-A titles still sometimes come out as unoptimized hot garbage. Do you genuinely think it's easy to pile a diffusion model on top with negligible effect? Also, will you pack an entire model into your game just for one instance?
I use that as an example because yes, there's models that can easily run on an Nvidia 1060 these days. Those models are more than enough to handle incremental changes to an image in-game
Look at the share of people using an 1050 or lower card. Or let's talk about the AMD and Intel issues. These people aren't an insignificant portion. Hell, nearly 15% don't even have 16GB of ram.
it's probably the best way to get an uncanny valley effect in ... a horror game, as the alternatives would be:
- spending many hours manually making hundreds of incremental changes
- hiring someone to do what I just mentioned
What are you talking about? You're satisfied with a diffusion model's output, but won't be with any other method except excruciating manual labor? Your standards are all over the place—or rather, you don't have any. And let's keep it real: most won't give a shit if your game shows them either 10 or 100 slightly worse versions of the same image.
Procedural generation has been a thing for decades. Indie devs have been making do with nearly nonexistent art skills and less sophisticated tech for just as long. I feel like you don't actually care about the problem space, you just want to shove AI into the solution.
I'll call an open source model exploitation the day someone can accurately generate an exact work it was trained on not within 1, but at least within 10 generations.
Are you referring to the OSAID? The infamously broken definition that exists to serve companies? You don't understand what exploitation here means. "Can it regurgitate exact training input" is not the only question to ask, and not the bar. Knowing your work was used without consent to train computers to replace people’s livelihoods is extremely violating. Talk to artists.
I know the researching ability of people has decreased greatly over the years, but using "knowyourmeme" as a source? Really?
I tried to use an accessible and easily understandable example. Fuck off. Go do your own "research", open those beloved diffusion models, make your scary, then scarier images and try asking people what they think of the results. Do it a hundred times, since that's your only excuse as to why you need AI. No cherry-picking, you won't be able to choose what your rube goldberg painting will look like on other people's PCs.
That's an interesting enough idea in theory, so here's my take on it, in case you want one.
Yes, it sounds magical, but:
I've seen people defend Substack saying it's not so bad, or the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech.
I'm gonna say it: fuck free speech, I like myself some censorship. I sincerely believe some things are too harmful to be allowed to openly proliferate, that there's often a feasible path to reaching that conclusion, and it's not that difficult.
We mustn't avoid this because "it harms free speech." Nazis love that argument, and they're a threat to much more than just free speech. They shouldn't get to block attempts at censoring them, and they specially shouldn't get support to do so, because they're one of the reasons it's necessary in the first place.
"But not every case is clear-cut like Nazis," people will say, "you shouldn't support censorship, since it can be used for evil. Innocent ideas always get censored, too." To which I'll reply, "tell me more about those innocent ideas." When that happens, tell me. I'll reach out to people in charge, spread the news, get mad, help you in any way I can to fix it. We'll do it together. Fucking tell me more.
But lo and behold, many innocent ideas turn out to be dog-whistles or worse, it's always the same shit.
I don't care if it's Substack, or Ghost, or Twitter, or Reddit, or whatever. It's one thing to platform harmful views unaware. I get it, moderation is hard. Once aware, though, if your response is "but free speech," fuck off. It is moral and correct to censor Nazis. Same for people saying immigrants will eat your pets, or that gays want to sexualize children, change their genders, and harm women. Fuck that.
Platforms defining themselves on free speech is a red flag. "We're popular with both extremes" isn't a defense, it's a self-report that you're just a mercenary and like it that way—both sides being users means double the revenue.
Substack may not be Nazi-central, but it's surely a product of broligarchy.
Reminds me of people who said Amazon deforestation warranted a "military intervention." Hey, be funny if trumpet added another country to his want-to-invade list, wouldn't it? Yet folks still feel bothered when I say people in rich countries don't really care all that much about poorer ones.
It'd be really nice if that were true, but it doesn't match what I've lived so far. Also, people contribute to putting those governments in charge, and I don't think it's power making them racist when we talk.
I'm sorry, banana, that was sarcasm. I saw nothing I'd call a quality.
GenAI advocates would rather get rid of IP altogether, though. They claim they're all running ethical models already and it's perfect, but they also want artists' right to opt-out to not exist. Nevermind compensation, or the need for opt-in, we can't even agree on the importance of consent.