I respectfully disagree. Sure, it didn’t cure the world of ignorant people like we hoped, but they are not the average rational person. It massively increased the awareness of people about international issues like climate change, racism, injustice, and allowed people to forge bonds abroad far more easily. The discourse even among ignorant people is different from 20 years ago. However, the internet that did that might no longer be the same one it is today.

But honestly, “more facts leads to more truth” wasn’t the point of my message. It was “more spread of falsehoods leads to higher standards of evidence to back up the actual truth”, which isn’t quite the same. Before DNA evidence and photographic / video evidence, people sometimes had to rely on testimony. Nowadays if someone tells you a story that screams false you might say “pics or it didn’t happen.”. That’s the kind of progress I’m referring to.

Someone presenting you only a single photo of something damning is the hearsay of yesterday. (And honestly, it’s been that way since Photoshop came out, but AI will push that point even further)

I have a similar hesitancy, but unfortunately that’s why we can’t even really trust ourselves either. The statistics we can put to paper already paints such a different image of society than the one we experience. So even though it feels like these people are everywhere and such a mindset is growing, there are many signs that this is not the case. But I get it, that at times also feels like puffing some hopium. I’m fortunate to have met enough stubborn people that did end up changing their minds on their own personal irrationality, and as I grew older I caught myself doing the same a couple of times as well. That does give me hope.

And well, if you look at history, the kind of shit people believed. Miasma, bloodletting, superstitious beliefs, to name a few. As time has moved on, the majority of people has grown. Even a century where not a lot changes in that regard (as long as it doesn’t regress) can be a speed bump in the mindset of the future.

While I share this sentiment, I think/hope the eventual conclusion will be a better relationship between more people and the truth. Maybe not for everyone, but more people than before. Truth is always more like 99.99% certain than absolute truth, and it’s the collection of evidence that should inform ‘truth’. The closest thing we have to achieving that is the court system (In theory).

You don’t see the electric wiring in your home, yet you ‘know’ flipping the switch will cause electricity to create light. You ‘know’ there is not some other mechanism in your walls that just happens to produce the exact same result. But unless you check, you technically didn’t know for sure. Someone could have swapped it out while you weren’t looking, even if you built it yourself. (And even if you check, your eyes might deceive you).

With Harris’ airport crowd, honestly if you weren’t there, you have to trust second hand accounts. So how do you do that? One video might not say a lot, and honestly if I saw the alleged image in a vacuum I might have been suspicious of AI as well.

But here comes the context. There are many eye witness perspectives where details can be verified and corroborated. The organizer isn’t an habitual liar. It happened at a time that wasn’t impossible (eg. a sort of ‘counter’-alibi). It happened in a place that isn’t improbable (She’s on the campaign trail). If true, it would require a conspiracy level of secrecy to pull of. And I could list so many more things.

Anything that could be disproven with ‘It might have been AI’, probably would have not stuck in court anyways. It’s why you take testimony, because even though that proves nothing on it’s own, if corroborated with other information it can make one situation more or less probable.

I kinda get not starting shit with other instances (Although, Hexbear should be the last to be able to invoke that), and it is still her instance and her rules there. But yeah it would not make me happy to be part of a community under those rules. Being a safe space doesn’t mean you have to shield bad actors from criticism. Especially if she’s not going to be respectful to good actors. And it really is weird how she comes to some of her conclusions (How is a non-existing person trans, where did she learn this?) and then still wants the same response when that turns out to be wrong.

Ada is a strange one yeah. I remember them because instead of just generally deciding they didn’t want to federate with lemmynsfw, she accused the admins of lemmynsfw of allowing CSAM when that turned out to be from a confirmed adult model that just happened to have a smaller body, and when she found that out she doubled down. That’s such a weird take from a supposedly pro LGBTQ+ lemmy admin, considering that accepting of people of all shapes and sizes is a core tenet of being LGBTQ+.

Humans do. Humans guide and use AI towards what they want to make. And AI don’t make for-profit products either, that’s also humans.

I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. You’re absolutely correct (at least, in the US). And it seems to be based on pretty solid reasoning, so I could see a lot of other copyright offices following the same idea.

Source: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf (See header II. The Human Authorship Requirement)

That’s sort of currently the law with copyright in the US. You can’t get a copyright on material made completely by an AI. Only if a human interfered can you get a copyright, and most likely only on the parts that the human interfered with.

Source: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf (See header II. The Human Authorship Requirement)

LLMs can’t have truly new unique ideas yes, but neither does most of humanity. AIs are very good at mixing information, acting like an unrestricted pattern mixer. It’s missing the artistic intent to drive that somewhere meaningful and enjoyable to humans to be seen as real art, which is what sets humans apart from AI despite. But humans can include artistic intent into the materials the AI uses, like lyrics and style, which in turns does raise it back to the level of real art.

That’s where open source AI comes in. If we have the same freedoms then all it takes is grassroots efforts to ensure the tools born of humanity’s information remain free to be used by all of humanity. We should also be able to use the same tool without having to pay those companies a dime.

I totally agree. However, AI assisted works will probably fare much better, depending on how much a human inserted artistic intent into the AI. It’s as you say, people enjoy the steps they have control over, and I think most will use it to replace the steps they are bad at, or which take very long otherwise. Fully AI generated works will probably never be good enough.

Is there a place you share them? That sounds hilarious.

There’s also the absolute lack of nuance of “Haha the Dutch are all kinda racist - look they wear blackface as a tradition, aren’t they so morally reprehensible am I right?”. Of course I’m going for maximum nuance after that, because they already muddied the water.

And you damn well know that posting that carelessly next to a different touchy subject is in extreme bad faith. It’s almost like you’re mad I didn’t let them slander my country unopposed. Get outta here.

If you’re not willing to be nuanced about difficult topics in good faith, you clearly do not care about it, nor about making the world a better place.

I’m sorry, but this is just really kind of disingenuous to start something like this next to a topic such as this. Your experience with one company or something is purely anecdotal and the controversy around Zwarte Piet is also very nuanced to this very day. The kind of nuance someone not from here will not get from a casual google search. For anyone that cares about actually understanding, here’s a rundown:

Many people attributed Zwarte Piet as a fun and good role model for kids, not some kind of caricature clown to laugh at. Literally almost everyone grew up knowing and having a fond enjoyment of Zwarte Piet, like a childhood imaginary friend that always showed up when you needed a smile the most. And that creates a strong desire to set that positivity forth by continuing the tradition. It takes really good reasons to destroy something most people attribute to be part of the greater good of their lives.

We try to understand racism, and strive to effectively reduce it rather than just mindlessly treat symptoms. Many people saw the existence of Zwarte Piet as a way to instill positive experiences to kids who might be isolated from having positive experiences with actual people of color. We know that in part racism comes about from not having enough (or too many bad) real world experiences with people of different skin colors. It is a type of fear of the unknown. As such, this still seems like solid reasoning. (Fun note, rats will also not help other stranger rats with a different fur color to escape even with no direct harm to themselves except when they have already lived alongside aside a rat with that fur color)

Even people of color were not completely on one side, but for the ones that it hurt, it hurt loudly. Black people in the Caribbean (Also part of the Netherlands) still use Zwarte Piet to this day, because they do not care - They do not see the racism in it. Unfortunately there seems to be a correlation between being affected by racism and seeing the racism in Zwarte Piet, as many of us learned as the conversation marched on. And racists definitely did wield Zwarte Piet to make their racism be known. In a world without racism, Zwarte Piet would not be controversial. And many people were not acutely aware of the racism some people of color faced.

The majority has wanted to get rid of it (since about 2018, actually), and most places have more accepted solutions in place now. But this does not mean that many people agree because we think Zwarte Piet is actually inherently racist. It’s because we’ve heard the concerns of people of color and weighed their burden to be more important to relieve than the perceived benefit of tradition and instilling a positive message on people that look different from yourself. It also didn’t help that the vast majority of people that still wanted to overrule those concerns were pretty obviously racist, which pushed even more people over the edge, because we don’t want to hold traditions in place that shield racists and bigots. Some countries could really learn from that.

EDIT: Added a video about the rat study :)

That’s because you’re using AI for the correct thing. As others have pointed out, if AI usage is enforced (like in the article), chances are they’re not using AI correctly. It’s not a miracle cure for everything and should just be used when it’s useful. It’s great for brainstorming. Game development (especially on the indie side of things) really benefit from being able to produce more with less. Or are you using it for DnD?

Depends on what kind of AI enhancement. If it’s just more things nobody needs and solves no problem, it’s a no brainer. But for computer graphics for example, DLSS is a feature people do appreciate, because it makes sense to apply AI there. Who doesn’t want faster and perhaps better graphics by using AI rather than brute forcing it, which also saves on electricity costs.

But that isn’t the kind of things most people on a survey would even think of since the benefit is readily apparent and doesn’t even need to be explicitly sold as “AI”. They’re most likely thinking of the kind of products where the manufacturer put an “AI powered” sticker on it because their stakeholders told them it would increase their sales, or it allowed them to overstate the value of a product.

Of course people are going to reject white collar scams if they think that’s what “AI enhanced” means. If legitimate use cases with clear advantages are produced, it will speak for itself and I don’t think people would be opposed. But obviously, there are a lot more companies that want to ride the AI wave than there are legitimate uses cases, so there will be quite some snake oil being sold.

What are you talking about? The open source community has trained these kinds of models. They’re out there.

Yes and it’s really getting to the point where it undoubtedly impacts his ability to perform without an aide basically at his side at all times. Imagine him telling another world leader something insane and the translator having to jump in correct him. Or worse, how can you be sure something he did mean to say was actually something he meant to say and not just another mistake? That kind of communication failure is very dangerous at the highest level.

I thought you were trolling, like in a “you have to double check if I’m bullshitting you now” kind of way. But it’s actually true… and unlike his Putin remark he didn’t seem to even notice he said it.