78440 pts · September 7, 2011
I'm a lurker, hear me roar.
Simultaneously joking and serious: isn’t that called “milk”?
Yoink!
The key thing is that Duchamp didn’t actually *produce* works like Fountain; he *interpreted* a “readymade” object and highlighted it as art and signed it. Which sounds a lot like what someone generating something might do, though obviously most generated stuff doesn’t rise even to that standard.M-W’s use of “conscious” does beg the question a bit, but I’d rather question: why’d you choose that definition over others? Either way, it’s not your initial “human talent”.
[citation needed]
This is the trap of AI. You don’t have the talent to satisfy yourself *today*, but you can either wank that lack into the void, or you can start doing something about it.The bad news is that you may *never* feel satisfied: as you get better at art you’ll increasingly *see* your own shortcomings even as the absolute quality of your work improves.The good news is that you *will* get better as you put the effort in, and your fastest progress is at the start as you go from “bad” to “decent”.
You’re using it as a tool to help support your own creativity. You’re doing fine.
The void called. It said to exhume Marcel Duchamp’s hand so that I can use it to slap everyone who comes up with a convenient definition of art that makes whatever point they like while implicitly excluding reams of real, human art, e.g. a urinal turned on its side.(In case it’s not clear: I’m not talking about AI *at all* here.)
It’s really sad, TBH. The ones who are all “ReSpEct tHe CoNsTitUtiON” but probably couldn’t identify an amendment past the Second…
Hi, naturalized immigrant here. The test is embarrassingly easy: there are something like 50 possible questions, they give you them *and* the answers ahead of time, and you only need to get 6 or thereabouts correct before they cut you off as passing (so I only answered that many).
Fun fact: this particular bit of vandalism did not, in fact, happen. It’s just the shitpost.
I checked up on this meme years ago when it was first posted: the author didn’t actually vandalize Wikipedia but merely shitposted about doing so. Which doesn’t help much, since they’re still glorifying vandalism, but at least they weren’t being a jerk directly.
As one of the volunteers who has reverted thousands of vandalistic edits: no, it’s not harmless, because enough of the time the classifier-model bot doesn’t revert it (it won’t revert unless it’s “99.9% sure” something’s vandalism) and then a human volunteer must instead. You might as well say “one piece of litter doesn’t hurt anyone”.
Okay, pet peeve time: you have it backwards. It’s called AI because that’s what the field of research has been called for decades—AI dates back to the 1940s. It’s more that AI also includes the videogame AIs that walk into walls than that it only includes the sci-fi AIs, and the extant AI is a lot closer to the videogame ones than the sci-fi ones.
This is how I learned about him; showed up at a concert on the tour and then got to think “I wonder who this clown is” in a non-derogatory way. He’s not quite to my taste, but he’s certainly talented.
Previously it was mostly “AI usually doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s standards” and it was merely discouraged, with repeated poor use considered disruptive editing. It’s now got a bright-line prohibition with two narrow exceptions. The difference was the community observing the asymmetric work of reviewing generated content (hard) versus generating it (easy). Wikipedia’s not taking a stand so much as being pragmatic; the community’s long used (non-generative) classifier models to e.g. revert vandalism.
It’s *possible* to put effort into AI, especially with locally-run models and using ControlNet with a sketch to guide the model. I did some okay stuff that way experimenting with it a few years back, but my usual “AI” is “Adobe Illustrator”.The problem is that a large majority of the people into AI don’t want to put in even the trivial effort of *looking* for what to improve, e.g. seeing that a scene’s both front-lit and shows the sun in the background. *That’s* what makes it slop.
Druid vibes.
while(true) {…}
What about sesbian parse?
No, because they have private servers. The Fairness Doctrine’s jurisdiction is in broadcasts, where the government has a public interest in overseeing the finite bandwidth over the frequency spectrum which people must share.
Androgen insensitivity, various things messing with SRY, or mosaicism, even.
That makes MAGA sound like seagulls … which is a more apt comparison than I’d have thought.
If the Dutch overtones weren’t inappropriate I’d tell them to go by Stroop.
I like that option, but I think people perhaps should take it a step bolder and just pick a new name for *both*, and I don’t mean just hyphenating (which is valid, but … mild).
The loanwords have already started diverging into false friends not long after being loaned. :P
It’s probably AI. Which is disappointing, because at the resolution it’s at it would hardly have been difficult to ’shop in a frog from a real photo.
“∝” is the symbol for proportionality, so “my_speed ∝ k/interbumper_distance” (where k is some constant) says “my speed is inversely proportional to our inter-bumper distance”, but the real relation is probably relative to the local speed limit if you want to be pedantic.
Israel getting nuked would be a cherry of deep irony on the shit sundae of this whole fucking timeline.
In this specific episode of DS9, the kind of stick being held in the second image is identified as a “klon peag”, and the main thing we’re told about them is that they have “many uses”.“Allamaraine” is just part of a Space Hopscotch rhyme that the command crew have to sing while hopping.
Simultaneously joking and serious: isn’t that called “milk”?
Yoink!
The key thing is that Duchamp didn’t actually *produce* works like Fountain; he *interpreted* a “readymade” object and highlighted it as art and signed it. Which sounds a lot like what someone generating something might do, though obviously most generated stuff doesn’t rise even to that standard.
M-W’s use of “conscious” does beg the question a bit, but I’d rather question: why’d you choose that definition over others? Either way, it’s not your initial “human talent”.
[citation needed]
This is the trap of AI. You don’t have the talent to satisfy yourself *today*, but you can either wank that lack into the void, or you can start doing something about it.
The bad news is that you may *never* feel satisfied: as you get better at art you’ll increasingly *see* your own shortcomings even as the absolute quality of your work improves.
The good news is that you *will* get better as you put the effort in, and your fastest progress is at the start as you go from “bad” to “decent”.
You’re using it as a tool to help support your own creativity. You’re doing fine.
The void called. It said to exhume Marcel Duchamp’s hand so that I can use it to slap everyone who comes up with a convenient definition of art that makes whatever point they like while implicitly excluding reams of real, human art, e.g. a urinal turned on its side.
(In case it’s not clear: I’m not talking about AI *at all* here.)
It’s really sad, TBH. The ones who are all “ReSpEct tHe CoNsTitUtiON” but probably couldn’t identify an amendment past the Second…
Hi, naturalized immigrant here. The test is embarrassingly easy: there are something like 50 possible questions, they give you them *and* the answers ahead of time, and you only need to get 6 or thereabouts correct before they cut you off as passing (so I only answered that many).
Fun fact: this particular bit of vandalism did not, in fact, happen. It’s just the shitpost.
I checked up on this meme years ago when it was first posted: the author didn’t actually vandalize Wikipedia but merely shitposted about doing so. Which doesn’t help much, since they’re still glorifying vandalism, but at least they weren’t being a jerk directly.
As one of the volunteers who has reverted thousands of vandalistic edits: no, it’s not harmless, because enough of the time the classifier-model bot doesn’t revert it (it won’t revert unless it’s “99.9% sure” something’s vandalism) and then a human volunteer must instead. You might as well say “one piece of litter doesn’t hurt anyone”.
Okay, pet peeve time: you have it backwards. It’s called AI because that’s what the field of research has been called for decades—AI dates back to the 1940s. It’s more that AI also includes the videogame AIs that walk into walls than that it only includes the sci-fi AIs, and the extant AI is a lot closer to the videogame ones than the sci-fi ones.
This is how I learned about him; showed up at a concert on the tour and then got to think “I wonder who this clown is” in a non-derogatory way. He’s not quite to my taste, but he’s certainly talented.
Previously it was mostly “AI usually doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s standards” and it was merely discouraged, with repeated poor use considered disruptive editing. It’s now got a bright-line prohibition with two narrow exceptions. The difference was the community observing the asymmetric work of reviewing generated content (hard) versus generating it (easy). Wikipedia’s not taking a stand so much as being pragmatic; the community’s long used (non-generative) classifier models to e.g. revert vandalism.
It’s *possible* to put effort into AI, especially with locally-run models and using ControlNet with a sketch to guide the model. I did some okay stuff that way experimenting with it a few years back, but my usual “AI” is “Adobe Illustrator”.
The problem is that a large majority of the people into AI don’t want to put in even the trivial effort of *looking* for what to improve, e.g. seeing that a scene’s both front-lit and shows the sun in the background. *That’s* what makes it slop.
Druid vibes.
while(true) {…}
What about sesbian parse?
No, because they have private servers. The Fairness Doctrine’s jurisdiction is in broadcasts, where the government has a public interest in overseeing the finite bandwidth over the frequency spectrum which people must share.
Androgen insensitivity, various things messing with SRY, or mosaicism, even.
That makes MAGA sound like seagulls … which is a more apt comparison than I’d have thought.
If the Dutch overtones weren’t inappropriate I’d tell them to go by Stroop.
I like that option, but I think people perhaps should take it a step bolder and just pick a new name for *both*, and I don’t mean just hyphenating (which is valid, but … mild).
The loanwords have already started diverging into false friends not long after being loaned. :P
It’s probably AI. Which is disappointing, because at the resolution it’s at it would hardly have been difficult to ’shop in a frog from a real photo.
“∝” is the symbol for proportionality, so “my_speed ∝ k/interbumper_distance” (where k is some constant) says “my speed is inversely proportional to our inter-bumper distance”, but the real relation is probably relative to the local speed limit if you want to be pedantic.
Israel getting nuked would be a cherry of deep irony on the shit sundae of this whole fucking timeline.
In this specific episode of DS9, the kind of stick being held in the second image is identified as a “klon peag”, and the main thing we’re told about them is that they have “many uses”.
“Allamaraine” is just part of a Space Hopscotch rhyme that the command crew have to sing while hopping.