iteygib

"Add to all the broken basics, the fact that your data is now locked away in a vault that will absolutely disappear at some point in the not-too-distant future, and it just makes no sense at all."

Who cares? Why do you want to record every single thing forever? Do you write down every single thing when you converse with someone in real life?

And you really can't figure out how to use Discord, when a 14-year old apparently can? Maybe it's time to retire.

I don't understand the issue here. The author of the post is mad because people have the choice to not publicly discuss things? Why do they owe the author their conversations? Is this AI/data scraping related and the author is mad that they can't get a portion of data out there?

It's the same thing: you're entering input into a system and expecting output. I just summed up your post.

It's the same thing: you're entering input into a system and expecting output.

I did. It's trying to play off randomness as art, hence the generative part, and trying to subtly relate that to AI through use of abstract artists like Pollock.

It's also not new. If you've taken any modern art history class before, this is article/website is the same content. Every generation of art/artist tries to justify their existence to the last.

I respectfully disagree. At the end of the day, generative art is the same thing as googling an image to search for the end user, in as your aren't creating anything, but rather, you are asking for something to be produced for you based on typed or entered criteria. You are a patron waiting for the engine to produce something for you.

If you want to say there is an art to prompting, that's fine.

This is the correct answer. It was taken as an assault on what everyone grew up with and learned their particular trade on (and still may use).

It's also a bad comparison on Apple's part. An ipad is another creative tool and provides a different experience than other methods (like traditional painting). For example, I play acoustic and electric guitar, but also use Ableton. I love my acoustic for the feel and experience, something I can't get in Ableton. I use Ableton for digital composition and sampling, something that's completely different from the feel of strings and how the notes feel through the wood of my acoustic. They are different experiences and usage and purpose.

If social media was ever regulated, it would have to (and should be, IMO) done from the angle of the financial regulation. If social media is compared to a marketplace, then the marketplace can be regulated to ensure financial health of the system.

What it shouldn't be regulated for is the content itself. I don't like congresspeople of any party wanting to regulate something because they see less of the news they like on one platform, regardless of if it's factual merit. These are voluntary entertainment sites. If you want to see a platform that carries your news, then instead you free to talk with your wallet, to petition the company and get other users on board, and totally free to start your own platform (or, as seems to be the trend nowadays, free to buy someone else's if you can't make one yourself)

'Gospel' means you don't have evidence for something or can't prove it practically, meaning it relies on story/word of mouth, which is why it's generally associated with religion and not science (or should not be anyways).

It doesn't matter whether a source likes you or not. It matters if what they are reporting is factual and verifiable. If you only go with sources that say nice things about you, then you're biased and are living in a bubble of your own narcissism.

So your argument against their argument is that you don't like their coverage. Ok, thanks for explaining that.

What is naive about the point? And what is your argument? You don't make one to read.

To me, this is the same thing we all lived through in the 90s in America when particular political parties were blaming video games for violence:

https://ncac.org/resource/a-timeline-of-video-game-controver...

India seems to be going after a lot of political opposition opponents these days to its main BJP party:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/31/india-opposition-pr...

Those aren't factual though, those are one just one side of an opinionated argument. Social media can also be argued to have positive values. IE, I would argue that most kids use social media not because of being addicted, but because they find and form new types of communities:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK594763/#:~:text=Social...

Given it's Florida and the political leanings of it's governor, I would argue the law is more in line with CCP/Communist values: attempt to disrupt the communication networks of a demographic that is highly against you.

It depends on what the change is. I wouldn't approve states trialing slavery. I don't agree with the social media law as well. It's a cultural tool, so let parents dictate what they want their kids to see or use. If anything, they could push laws to give parents better tools/information to help them manager their kid's screen time, not just an outright ban.

Any kind of search can be deemed constitutional if it goes through a warrant process, which is the point of warrants. This story is less about the how the information was taken and more about whether or not the warrant process and 4th Amendment rights were properly followed.

This would then be mixed in with the question of whether or not new forms of data (like video views) would equate to previous forms of similar data searches that police have obtained warrants for (like reviewing CCTV).

Humans/life don't need data. Life survives off of experience and evolutionary pressures. Data is a watered-down/digitized form of experience meant as a replication of that experience, the same way you can hear/analyze music on your computer. It's just usually close enough that most people can't tell the difference. All of that was fed by human "data", which means AI as ultimately a copy of evolutionary pressures that it never went through.

Typewriter/printing presses are for faster propagation or execution. AI in the cultural sense is about replication, hence the Artificial Intelligence tag. Typewriters aren't attempting to replicate or substitute, they are tools like a hammer. They are designed to be operated by humans since they are analog in nature, like your keyboard. AI doesn't need a keyboard, it's operating off our end contributions directly. It cares about the final, digitized form of the novels we feed it, no how we made it or came up with it.

That is the key difference here. It is the same thing when someone creates something based on their own direct experiences versus someone who is simply copying something. It is why AI art for example is increasingly looking bizarre in my opinion: it's completely recycled/fake.

Those are tools humans use to created output directly to speed up a process. The equivalent argument for AI would be if the typewriter wrote you a novel based on what you asked it to write, and then everyone else's typewriter might create the same/similar novel if it's averaging all of the same human data input. This leads to a cultural inbreeding of sorts since the data that went into it was curated to begin with.

The real defining thing to remember is that humans don't need AI, but AI needs human data.

In this case I would say AI is the crocodile, the same as all life is. It's specializing (or becoming specialized) in something, which is prediction, in the same way a human (or any life that shows the same definitions of intelligence as us, like a crow solving a puzzle) can show success in a new or novel situation. But life does not need this definition of intelligence to survive, which leads to the basis of evolutionary theory. The trait of adaptability/prediction/intelligence is not always useful given a niche and can get weeded out, which is why most life does not need it, yet they are still around. In organisms that do possess it, it can be a detriment as well given specific situations (over analyzing, stuck in anxiety, excessive risks to adapt, etc.).

In other words, when we say an LLM is becoming intelligent, it's not that it is in the general sense. It's that we recognize the traits within it because the traits make sense to us and mimic what we define ourselves in terms of specializing, because quite obviously, we made it and provide its data input. But, the key difference is that AI has none of the original impetus or evolutionary pressures that led to our own ability to generalize/specialize. This is because its output is derived from human input, which is fed through it through digitized means, which means there is always some kind of 'loss' since it is a specialized aspect of us.

It is why I made the reference to typing. We are communicating right now, but at the same time, it is a specialized form of it. It is not the full original human experience of talking to one another, but does not have to be in this case, because it works well enough and has some advantages given the niche. If we were using Facetime, it would be much closer, but still not quite the same as being in the same room face-to-face.

In my opinion, we are not so much prediction machines, but rather mimickers who can also create mimics of themselves via what we can make. You do not need to be able to predict that well if you can just mindlessly copy something that succeeded somehow.

I think that is my overall point though - we created a system (AI) based on how we see one aspect of a particular organ or system (brain, cortex, etc.), and, in this case, labeled intelligence as 'predictive behavior', and so develop systems after that model. But for starters, only mammals and a few other life branches have cortexes, and cortexes weren't always around.

Evolutionary theory isn't hinged on prediction in itself, it's just one possible aspect of it. But, organisms that rely on prediction or primarily see themselves as predictive machines will state the opposite, because we cannot do anything else but model off what we think we know.

It is also further diluted in the sense that we are always limited in what we can model because of the digital nature of our medium as it attempts to model analog systems. It is like saying that the words that I am typing right now are just like having a real human conversation. No, not really. It is a diluted form of conversation that focuses on a specific, bare part of the communicative process.

I agree with the notion that governments shouldn't be able to coerce communication companies to echo their own positions. However, if they use a built in function of the software (like a 'delete comment' button) to moderate their account, then I don't see how that's a 1st Amendment violation.

However, even with the first point, I am a little confused. Maybe someone can explain the legality of this to me: the 1st Amendment talks about Congress not being able to establish laws to prevent freedom of speech. Is a government official asking a social company to do something count as the creation of a law? This in contrast to Congress actually creating a law to make a social media company do something regarding free speech, which would be a violation.

To me, it is one of those things like defining what 'art' is, as in creating a model in our heads around a concept. We take our definitions and then use those to construct models like AI that simulate our model well enough.

In other words, I personally do not believe any system we develop will be truly 'intelligent', since intelligence is a concept we created to help explain ourselves. We can't even truly define it, but yet we try to test technologies we develop to see if they possess it. It is a bit non sensical to me.

How does evolutionary instinct factor into the system model? Flight or fight responses, reflexes, etc. 'Thinking' does have consequences in terms of evolutionary survival in some circumstances, as in spending too much time deliberating\simulating.

This isn't any different from the entirety of human history. The people in charge of the books write the books. It's why China does it's best to make the world forget about Tiananmen Square, or why in the early days of computing, only white men were shown doing the work despite the substantial amount of women in field (especially for things like ballistic calculations).

There is also a difference between error and purposeful misrepresentation.

Welcome to the internet!

I feel it's essentially what a library is. There is a public or private cost behind it (like taxes to pay for it), but for all intents and purposes, the information inside of it is 'free' from the standpoint of the sheer amount of use and good it can provide for that cost. It is not technically free, but as close as it can be, and the information it provides has undoubtedly paid it self back a countless amount of times to the public (getting inspired, research to create things, relaxation, etc. etc.).

Paraphrasing, but I do agree with the "information should be free but someone's time should not be" statement. How to properly execute and balance that though is the hard part

Do you not have any friends or family?

I would say even that is part of the problem. AI on a cultural level is based on the participation of subset of humanity: internet users, of which there are varying degrees of involvement (power users versus the email checkers, etc.), so what you see AI spit out will be based on what is popular for that subset.

IE, most AI art I've seen (as in imitation of hand painted work) seems to all be based on one style, Japanese anime, of which you can further dissect to see only specific styles of anime, etc. It gets so repetitive to look at that I am genuinely feeling nauesous looking at it all now.

It's essentially the phenomenon of less genetic diversity as massive repetitive inbreeding takes over. SEO, AI, etc. are streamlined cultures made to maximize attraction and revenue, akin to over breeding a once successful genetic trait in an environment to the point at which it becomes a detriment to the organism/group.