Then it’s a cat-and-mouse game between the anti-adblock tech and the anti-anti-adblock tech.
My money (not literally though :) is on the anti-anti-adblock tech. That can be crowdsourced and generally adapts much faster than big companies.
https://github.com/KerfuffleV2 — various random open source projects.
Then it’s a cat-and-mouse game between the anti-adblock tech and the anti-anti-adblock tech.
My money (not literally though :) is on the anti-anti-adblock tech. That can be crowdsourced and generally adapts much faster than big companies.
Probably the furthest man made object from Earth at this point for sure.
The article says “Scientists believe compression heating caused the cap to vaporize as it sped through the atmosphere.”
Fans? Customers yeah, but fans?
They actually did at one point, but they threw it all away.
The article seems to repeat the same stuff over and over again.
On Lemmy, a popular social networking site, user KerfuffleV2 astutely noted that the article repeated points that had already been stated in the article.
“It seems like the article repeated the same content multiple times” said KerfuffleV2, a user on the social networking site Lemmy. “Perhaps they get paid by the word.” the user added.
A rather uncreative article on thestreet.com triggered some snarky online comments including one from a user named KerfuffleV2. This user noted that the article repeated the same content multiple times.
Can you provide an example where science cannot explain a situation, because I can’t honestly think of any.
Not OP, but there is some stuff. One big example is qualia. How does matter give rise to actual feelings, experiences of things? This isn’t something we can measure directly and it actually seems like it won’t be something we ever can measure. Might also be able to use something like “what was there before the big bang?” and that kind of thing.
Of course, the fact that science can’t explain something doesn’t really justify falling back on magic as an explanation though. Some stuff just may not have an answer.
Pretty sure it’s mainly non-furry non-gay hackers that take down the majority of websites.
Like, those cells will require the same nutrients and same growing conditions, and they naturally 3D print themselves into the shape of themselves.
They’ll also naturally use the nutrients and energy to 3D print stuff that’s not useful to humans, like leaves, roots, flowers, etc. Basically this is how vat grown vegetables, meat, etc, can potentially be more efficient than the typical approach.
I just want fucking humans paid for their work
That’s a problem whether or not we’re talking about AI.
why do you tech nerds have to innovate new ways to lick the boots of capital every few years?
That’s really not how it works. “Tech nerds” aren’t licking the boots of capitalists, capitalists just try to exploit any tech for maximum advantage. What are the tech nerds supposed to do, just stop all scientific and technological progress?
why AI should own all of our work, for free, rights be damned,
AI doesn’t “own your work” any more than a human artist who learned from it does. You don’t like the end result, but you also don’t seem to know how to come up with a coherent argument against the process of getting there. Like I mentioned, there are better arguments against it than “it’s stealing”, “it’s violating our rights” because those have some serious issues.
Artists who look at art are processing it in a relatable, human way.
Yeah, sure. But there’s nothing that says “it’s not stealing if you do it in a relatable, human way”. Stealing doesn’t have anything to do with that.
knowing that work is copyrighted and not available for someone else’s commercial project to develop an AI.
And it is available for someone else’s commercial project to develop a human artist? Basically, the “an AI” part is still irrelevant to. If the works are out there where it’s possible to view them, then it’s possible for both humans and AIs to acquire them and use them for training. I don’t think “theft” is a good argument against it.
But there are probably others. I can think of a few.
You can’t tell it to find art and plug it in.
Kind of. The AI doesn’t go out and find/do anything, people include images in its training data though. So it’s the human that’s finding the art and plugging it in — most likely through automated processes that just scrape massive amounts of images and add them to the corpus used for training.
It doesn’t have the capability to store or copy existing artworks. It only contains the matrix of vectors which contain concepts.
Sorry, this is wrong. You definitely can train AI to produce works that are very nearly a direct copy. How “original” works created by the AI are is going to depend on the size of the corpus it got trained on. If you train the AI (or put a lot of weight on) training for just a couple works from one specific artist or something like that it’s going to output stuff that’s very similar. If you train the AI on 1,000,000 images from all different artists, the output isn’t really going to resemble any specific artist’s style or work.
That’s why the company emphasized they weren’t training the AI to replicate a specific artist’s (or design company, etc) works.
Doubled down on the “yea were not gonna credit artist’s our AI stole from”. What a supreme douche
I don’t think it’s as simple as all that. Artists look at other artists’ work when they’re learning, for ideas, for methods of doing stuff, etc. Good artists probably have looked at a ton of other artwork, they don’t just form their skills in a vacuum. Do they need to credit all the artists they “stole from”?
In the article, the company made a point about not using AI models specifically trained on a smaller set of works (or some artist’s individual works). Doing something like that would be a lot easier to argue that it’s stealing: but the same would be true if a human artist carefully studied another person’s work and tried to emulate their style/ideas. I think there’s a difference between that an “learning” (or learning) for a large body of work and not emulating any specific artist, company, individual works, etc.
Obviously it’s something that needs to be handled fairly carefully, but that can be true with human artists too.
Firefox is like democracy. It sucks, but it’s better than the alternatives.
That is the worst site I’ve seen in a long time. Do yourself a favor and add
www.verticalfarmdaily.com###zijkant www.verticalfarmdaily.com###banners_zijkant
to your uBlock rules before following the link. If you don’t have a way to block elements, may $diety have mercy on your soul.