Alt. Profile @Th4tGuyII
Yeah. If you’re on a public forum accessible to anyone, which the whole fediverse is, then you should never assume privacy.
Honestly transparency in this regard would be better - they’re already visible to much of the community, so they might as well be visible to everyone.
To be fair, there’s a point to be made that someone who’s overly trigger-happy on dislike should be shamed for it. Just like you would be if you kept being snide to everyone in real life.
I agree that transparency would do much more good than harm, plus compared to the info that people already put in their profiles/comments, it’s not likely to make them anymore identifiable.
Votes should absolutely be public. They were on KBin, and it made people more civil for it because you could be shamed if you were dislike trolling or liking all of your own posts/comments to make them look better (which is something you actively have to do on here, unlike Reddit).
Given this place is pseudo-anonymous anyways, and people comment far more personal and identifiable info here anyways (which tbf you should be careful about), I think public votes would do much more good than harm.
Sounds great until you realise these rules, with respect to POWs, are broken so often that they’re barely worth the paper they’re written on.
Because that’s comparing oranges to apples.
In terms of pure image quality, real objects would win every time because they only have to be filtered by our eyes - digital images are filtered through the GPU and screen before ever reaching our eyes.
As such, the real contest is the ability of displays to make digital images look comparable to those real objects - because that’s harder to do vs. ust looking at the real life object, it’s more impressive to us.
Makes you wonder how long it’ll be until even the worst AI images are indistinguishable from human-produced images
Possibly Newgrounds, I used to lurk around there a lot when I was younger
It’s a race to the bed, as everybody knows monsters can’t invade your bed, that’s why so many of them live under it
To jump on the bandwagon, OP’s showing their age. I can’t remember where I first saw Badger Badger, but it was definitely pre-Youtube (or at least mainstream Youtube) when Flash was all the rage
Particularly for physical injuries, I sometimes prefer to suffer as it reminds me that I need to be careful, which I know I’d forget if I subdued the pain.
Having said that, for things like flu’s where it’s just pure suffering for nothing, I’ll suck down as many painkillers as I can have in a day.
Honestly these guys are both the smartest and stupidest folks imaginable at the same time - I’m just glad it’s the Russians they’re screwing over this time haha
I thought Earth was Neapolitan style, but it was Chicago deep dish the whole time! If only I’d have known earlier!
At the time I got my current system, I did 1tb SSD for the main, and a 4tb HDD for data drive.
For my next system, I think I’ll split that a bit more evenly, as most of my games end up on the HDD which means they a bit to load
So providing a fine-tuned model shouldn’t either.
I didn’t mean in terms of providing. I meant that if someone provided a base model, someone took that and but on of it, then used it for a harmful purpose - of course the person modified it should be liable, not the base provider.
It’s like if someone took a version of Linux, modified it, then used that modified version for a similar person - you wouldn’t go after the person who made the unmodified version.
SB 1047 is a California state bill that would make large AI model providers – such as Meta, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Mistral – liable for the potentially catastrophic dangers of their AI systems.
Now this sounds like a complicated debate - but it seems to me like everyone against this bill are people who would benefit monetarily from not having to deal with the safety aspect of AI, and that does sound suspicious to me.
Another technical piece of this bill relates to open-source AI models. […] There’s a caveat that if a developer spends more than 25% of the cost to train Llama 3 on fine-tuning, that developer is now responsible. That said, opponents of the bill still find this unfair and not the right approach.
In regards to the open source models, while it makes sense that if a developer takes the model and does a significant portion of the fine tuning, they should be liable for the result of that…
But should the main developer still be liable if a bad actor does less than 25% fine tuning and uses exploits in the base model?
One could argue that developers should be trying to examine their black-boxes for vunerabilities, rather than shrugging and saying it can’t be done then demanding they not be held liable.
Alright, fine. You can have 20 miles or so, but nothing more. Oh and all the islands around it are still our’s.
Could’ve told you that 10 years ago. Literally the moment online came out and they suddenly they stopped talking about story DLCs, I knew we weren’t getting them.
The story-mode campaign is now just a gateway drug to their online cash-cow - I bet you it’ll be the same for GTA 6
Could you simp any harder for Russia?
The Ukrainian people are out there fighting tooth and nail to survive the Russian onslaught, yet you’re in your armchair acting like they should just give up because Russia wants them to.
That was my first thought too. It was only when the pseudoscience started that I realised I was meant to side with Starbucks girl here, and not the soldier helping out sewer man
Image manipulation has always been a thing, and there are ways to counter it…
But we already know that a shocking amount of people will simply take what they see at face value, even if it does look suspicious. The volume of AI generated misinformation online is already too damn high, without it getting more new strings in it’s bow.
Governments don’t seem to be anywhere near on top of keeping up with these AI developments either, so by the time the law starts accounting for all of this, the damage will be long done already.