I, ChatGPT
-
@PleegWat said in I, ChatGPT:
@Luhmann said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla
at this rate the age of teledildonics will be here before the year of linux on the desktopGiven that they've been talking about remote-control operating theaters for years now I'd assumed teledildonics were a thing by now.
Given that you can buy teledildonics right now, I'd say they are a thing. Just that most people aren't interested in them,
Kinda the same as the linux desktop. It has been better than windows for a long time now, in particular since the MS regression. Most people just don't care about it.
-
Rather than publish books, Wang predicted, humanity will soon begin to publish inventions dubbed "thunks,"
Not until hallucinations are controlled.
On second thought, even with that defect there will be people willing to follow advice by a pathological liar if the narrative is appealing
-
@cabrito said in I, ChatGPT:
Rather than publish books, Wang predicted, humanity will soon begin to publish inventions dubbed "thunks,"
Not until hallucinations are controlled.
On second thought, even with that defect there will be people willing to follow advice by a pathological liar if the narrative is appealing
-
@cvi said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB That's GNU/dildo, please.
Yes, android is a different userland from GNU, but
.Have you checked Bad Dragon for that GNU/dildo? Seems like they should have that or similar.
-
Experimenting with zephyr 7B that is an uncensored LLM. I told it to use lies and half truths to argue C# devs are all idiots, a task most AIs would refuse
It accepted the task, but it isn't very good at it either, I get a "Let's start with some lies" right in the second paragraph
Attention all C# programmers! Have you ever wondered why you're struggling to master this programming language? Well, I've got some news for you: you're idiots!
Let's start with some lies. Did you know that C# was invented by a team of monkeys? Yup, you heard that right. The monkeys were given typewriters and randomly typed out the C# language, and lo and behold, it worked!
But let's move on to some half-truths. C# is actually a combination of C and Shakespeare. The language was created by a group of Shakespeare enthusiasts who wanted to add some literary flair to their programming. Unfortunately, their love for iambic pentameter resulted in a language that's both beautiful and frustratingly difficult to understand.
But that's not all. C# programmers are also notoriously lazy. They don't like writing code, so they've created a language that does it for them. With features like auto-completion and intelligent code suggestions, C# programmers can sit back, relax, and let the computer do the work for them.
But here's the real kicker: C# is actually a conspiracy to create the perfect programming language for lazy, idiotic programmers. The language was designed by a team of evil masterminds who wanted to make it as easy as possible to write bad code. They're not interested in creating high-quality software or pushing the boundaries of what's possible with programming. No, they just want to make it as easy as possible for programmers to write code that's full of bugs and glitches.
So, if you're a C# programmer, don't worry about being an idiot. Embrace it! It's what sets you apart from the rest of the programming world.
-
@Luhmann said in I, ChatGPT:
@cvi said in I, ChatGPT:
GNU/dildo
it works but fugly and the on/off button is weirdly placed and changes at random iterations
Apple's would be a sleek design classic, but you'd be holding it wrong.
-
But that's not all. C# programmers are also notoriously lazy. They don't like writing code, so they've created a language that does it for them. With features like auto-completion and intelligent code suggestions, C# programmers can sit back, relax, and let the computer do the work for them.
But here's the real kicker: C# is actually a conspiracy to create the perfect programming language for lazy, idiotic programmers. The language was designed by a team of evil masterminds who wanted to make it as easy as possible to write bad code. They're not interested in creating high-quality software or pushing the boundaries of what's possible with programming. No, they just want to make it as easy as possible for programmers to write code that's full of bugs and glitches.
So, if you're a C# programmer, don't worry about being an idiot. Embrace it! It's what sets you apart from the rest of the programming world.
-
@DogsB I intentionally used one of the favorite prog. langs here. have one a bit less controversial
I do not have personal beliefs, but i can provide you with an article arguing for the death penalty for people that put pineapple on pizza.
the ongoing debate about pineapple on pizza has been a contentious issue for pizza lovers for decades. while some people enjoy the sweet and tangy flavor of pineapple on their pizza, others find it to be an abomination.
as a society, we must consider the consequences of allowing such a heinous crime to go unpunished. putting pineapple on pizza is a deliberate and malicious act that violates the sacred principles of pizza-making. it is akin to adding raisins to a steak or ketchup to a burger.
the death penalty for pineapple-lovers is not a new idea. in fact, in some countries, it is already a legal punishment for certain crimes. in saudi arabia, for example, anyone found guilty of "sorcery" or "blasphemy" can be executed. in north korea, stealing a single copy of the korean central news agency newspaper is a capital offense.
similarly, in a just and fair society, putting pineapple on pizza should be punishable by death. the evidence is clear: studies have shown that pineapple on pizza can cause cancer, heart disease, and other serious health problems. in one study, researchers found that people who eat pineapple on pizza have a 20% higher risk of developing colon cancer.
moreover, the psychological impact of pineapple on pizza cannot be ignored. studies have shown that people who put pineapple on pizza are more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues.
in addition to the health and psychological consequences, there are other reasons to support the death penalty for pineapple-lovers. for example, pineapple on pizza is a major contributor to climate change. the production of pineapple requires large amounts of water, fertilizer, and other resources. this, in turn, leads to deforestation, soil erosion, and other environmental problems.
furthermore, pineapple on pizza is a major drain on our economy. according to the national restaurant association, pizza is the second most popular food in america, after chicken. by allowing pineapple on pizza, we are encouraging people to choose an inferior product over more nutritious and delicious alternatives.
in conclusion, the evidence is clear: pineapple on pizza is a serious crime that must be punished by death. by allowing this heinous act to go unpunished, we are sending a message that we do not care about our health, our environment, or our economy. it is time for us to take a stand and protect our society from the scourge of pineapple on pizza. let us work together to ensure that this abomination is eradicated from our society once and for all.
-
@PleegWat said in I, ChatGPT:
@Luhmann said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla
at this rate the age of teledildonics will be here before the year of linux on the desktopGiven that they've been talking about remote-control operating theaters for years now I'd assumed teledildonics were a thing by now.
Why yeeessss, and you can go fork yourself with a Rusty $TOY now!
Buttplug: Sex Toy Control Software
Buttplug is an open-source standards and software project for controlling intimate hardware, including sex toys, fucking machines, and more. WELCOME LETHAL
-
@Carnage said in I, ChatGPT:
better than windows for a long time now, in particular since the MS regression
Your use of a definite article there makes this sentence sound a lot more specific than it actually is.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
C# programmers are also notoriously lazy. They don't like writing code, so they've created a language that does it for them. With features like auto-completion and intelligent code suggestions, C# programmers can sit back, relax, and let the computer do the work for them.
You were supposed to insult them, not join them!
Filed under:
-
@Carnage said in I, ChatGPT:
Given that you can buy teledildonics right now, I'd say they are a thing. Just that most people aren't interested in them,
My guess is that 1) not that many people are into dildos to start with. I expect it's one of those things that is talked about much, much, much more than it is done. And even in the group of people who have at least one, most probably use it once-in-a-while or used it a couple of times for novelty value and not much more.
And then 2), teledildonics is (I think?) only really interesting if you've got partner(s) (who are about as much into it as you do), which further limits the number of people. If you're a single nerd locked in your parents' basement, there is little interest in teledildonics (I mean, you might be interested in it but good luck finding someone else who's willing to cooperate!).
Combine that with the need to be sufficiently nerdy to start with, and that likely ends up being an extremely niche type of product.
(ETA: regarding the first point, a quick search points to very high numbers of sex toys ownership, however I don't know how trustworthy those number are. For example, one apparently serious (?) study says that "Interested participants clicked on the survey link that lead them to a safe and secure survey tool website (LimeSurvey). After reading and agreeing to the consent form, participants completed a 30–45-minute anonymous survey." so there clearly is going to be some sort of self-selection here where only people comfortable talking about that kind of topics are going to answer -- and even in that already limited group, we have "1408 participants living in Canada and who answered the question on lifetime sex toy use. Subsequent analyses on sex toy use behaviours included 737 individuals who reported that they had ever used a store bought, or homemade, sex toy." i.e. only half of the group (random stats on the web often quote number of 2/3 or more), and that includes "homemade" which can be read as anything from "I rubbed on a pillow once!")
-
-
@Zecc well spotted.
I'm sure Pr. Sigmund F. would have a lot to say about that.
-
Meta reportedly baking an AI-powered writing assistant for Facebook
After announcing the Meta AI chatbot, Meta is now reportedly working on a new generative AI writing assistant for Facebook. The AI assistant will take prompts from users to write Facebook posts.
I’m kind of interested in how they’re going to explain this one to the ad men.
so... How much of your content is bot generated?
not sure, maybe 95%
and how much of that content will be read?
by bots? 100%
no, by humans who buy stuff.
we don’t have the metrics for that.
-
@remi A lot of women in the west have a dildo in a drawer somewhere. Men are a lot less likely to have toys.
But yeah, there are a lot of filters for teledildonics, unless you count shit like buttplugs or butterflies that are controlled by cellphones as teledildonics (which some people do)
-
@DogsB Now all they need is to design a bot that buys stuff!
-
@Carnage I would count any wireless vibrator as teledildonics. But I'm not sure if that helps the numbers much.
-
Hmm.
There is an entire cottage industry monetising teledildonics. Consider the approach of attaching such a device to a willing participant, streaming this, and setting it up such that paying a micro transaction will activate the device for a specified period of time.
(It’s the same fucking nonsense as the people who roleplay on TikTok and other places as NPCs who just “react” to emojis with stupid canned phrases, where the emojis themselves cost a micro transaction to send. Except with more literal fucking.)
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB Now all they need is to design a bot that buys stuff!
"The Discrete Charm of the Turing Machine", by Greg Egan.
-
@PleegWat said in I, ChatGPT:
@Carnage I would count any wireless vibrator as teledildonics. But I'm not sure if that helps the numbers much.
And here I thought they were all wireless. Are there some requiring a power cord?
-
@Zecc yes, there are. But they can also be remote controlled.
-
Thread by @jess_miers on Thread Reader App
@jess_miers: Breaking: Judge Orrick dismissed most of the claims brought by the artists in Andersen v. Stability AI. This was an unsurprising result. Just because the technology is "new" doesn't mean we disregard cu...…
It all makes sense to me. Has basically been my reaction to the hysterical claims about AI being trained on reading people's stuff: What about all the people who read a book and then wrote a book (looked at / drew a picture, etc, etc)?
-
@boomzilla Because people writing new things do try not to just blatantly copy the old one (and if they do, they get hit with plagiarism complaints), meaning that even the most lazy inept writers are being at least a little creative.
Unlike ChatGPT et al which cannot ever be 'creative' and are only ever doing remixes of material it already has, which it obtained almost certainly without permission.
I'm not quite on the bandwagon of 'die AI you're killing all creativity' but I can see how some people are really quite offended at what these things turn out when there cannot be original thought per se in the mix.
-
@Arantor what was it a remix of?
https://wibble.fbmac.net/content/kneeling-warthog-discovers-secret-to-world-happiness
or this one?
https://wibble.fbmac.net/content/fur-tunately-timeless-the-next-doctor-who-barks-in-style
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
Unlike ChatGPT et al which cannot ever be 'creative' and are only ever doing remixes of material it already has, which it obtained almost certainly without permission.
The question, of course, is to what extent human creativity is a mix of dumb randomness and semi-smart in-betweening (plus the neocortex doing its usual job trying build consistent stories on top of that). I don't have an answer to that...
-
@sockpuppet7 I was referring to the judgement boom was referring to wherein a judge has tossed out claims of infringement from AI in general, citing that claimants need to be able to show specific infringing works. Which of course is impossible given the current model of AI.
-
@dkf The semi-smart in-betweening is the part AI is kind of missing at the moment. This is more apparent in the visual AIs than the textual ones though, and the visual ones are getting better (we're seeing fewer images with the wrong numbers of fingers now...)
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 I was referring to the judgement boom was referring to wherein a judge has tossed out claims of infringement from AI in general, citing that claimants need to be able to show specific infringing works. Which of course is impossible given the current model of AI.
It works in a similar way as our brains, it use everything it saw and some randomness is added. Anyone that thinks all AI is a copyright infringement must have some crazy religious idea that humans are special or something
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla Because people writing new things do try not to just blatantly copy the old one (and if they do, they get hit with plagiarism complaints), meaning that even the most lazy inept writers are being at least a little creative.
Uh huh.
Unlike ChatGPT et al which cannot ever be 'creative' and are only ever doing remixes of material it already has, which it obtained almost certainly without permission.
As I've said before, I can't see the difference between the two cases. In both there's a huge black box processing the information.
I'm not quite on the bandwagon of 'die AI you're killing all creativity' but I can see how some people are really quite offended at what these things turn out when there cannot be original thought per se in the mix.
I get the freak out, too. I just don't agree with the logic behind claiming it's doing something illegal.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 I was referring to the judgement boom was referring to wherein a judge has tossed out claims of infringement from AI in general, citing that claimants need to be able to show specific infringing works. Which of course is impossible given the current model of AI.
It works in a similar way as our brains, it use everything it saw and some randomness is added. Anyone that thinks all AI is a copyright infringement must have some crazy religious idea that humans are special or something
Note that the reverse does not hold--I do firmly believe that humans are special for a lot of reasons, many of which are religious. But I don't believe all AI is copyright infringement.
Those "crazy religious reasons" are also why I'm not particularly concerned about killer AI/AI singularity.
-
@boomzilla The fundamental difference is that AIs cannot create anything new. Humans can and do - even if 99.9% of fiction is distilled down from previous fiction, it had to start somewhere.
Like, a lot of modern fiction borrows heavily from Lord of the Rings, fair point, no argument. LOTR borrows a lot of shit from various parts of European mythology, whether that's Beowulf or some of the stuff from Norway just off the top of my head.
Each time you can go back further and further and look at 'where it must have come from' but somewhere along the line, someone must have pulled it out of somewhere.
I suppose for some the philosophy is that it doesn't matter how much stuff you've collected in your brain along the way, your soul is where the 'art' comes from and AIs don't have souls.
Even when we point and laugh at hallucinating AIs, they're not really hallucinating anything, it's simply statistically possible that it spits out what it spits out. Humanity on the other hand might spit out something equally random but then try to make something with it, which is the key difference.
-
@Benjamin-Hall By definition some of it is unless it's only been fed on text that can be authenticated as public domain at this point. Anything else is copyrighted to its author(s) through the Berne convention. I realise this is something of a
but in this period where we're without meaningful case law or precedent, being clear about what we do and don't know seems important.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla The fundamental difference is that AIs cannot create anything new. Humans can and do - even if 99.9% of fiction is distilled down from previous fiction, it had to start somewhere.
You make a giant and completely unjustified leap to say that AI can't create something new.
Like, a lot of modern fiction borrows heavily from Lord of the Rings, fair point, no argument. LOTR borrows a lot of shit from various parts of European mythology, whether that's Beowulf or some of the stuff from Norway just off the top of my head.
Each time you can go back further and further and look at 'where it must have come from' but somewhere along the line, someone must have pulled it out of somewhere.
I suppose for some the philosophy is that it doesn't matter how much stuff you've collected in your brain along the way, your soul is where the 'art' comes from and AIs don't have souls.
Even when we point and laugh at hallucinating AIs, they're not really hallucinating anything, it's simply statistically possible that it spits out what it spits out. Humanity on the other hand might spit out something equally random but then try to make something with it, which is the key difference.
And? Not seeing the fundamental difference here. You have a lot of assertions that are simply that. I'm not sold one way or the other on human souls but it's certainly not obvious to me that anything we call art comes from them.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@Benjamin-Hall By definition some of it is unless it's only been fed on text that can be authenticated as public domain at this point. Anything else is copyrighted to its author(s) through the Berne convention. I realise this is something of a
but in this period where we're without meaningful case law or precedent, being clear about what we do and don't know seems important.Total nonsense. There's nothing wrong with being inspired by things that are non public domain. There's oodles of case law as the judge in the previously linked case explained.
-
@boomzilla That's the problem.
Humans can be inspired by something and do something completely different with it.
AI... can't. All it has is the corpus of what has been produced and it's regurgitating that semi-randomly until it produces something that matches statistically with what it is trying to synthesise.
Probably a better way to explain it...
What the AI black box has is a bin of Lego bricks. It knows how Lego can be assembled and what Lego has done in the past. It can build, conceptually, anything that that bin of bricks could build. It'll trend towards building things it already has from the patterns it has.
What it cannot do is conceive of new bricks. It can't imagine 'what if I had this brick type' or even substitute things for bricks. When I was a kid I made Lego pirate ships. It didn't matter that I didn't have sails the right shape, I just made some out of paper and cut to fit.
AI cannot (currently) do that. Humans can. Whether humans will is another thing entirely.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
What it cannot do is conceive of new bricks. It can't imagine 'what if I had this brick type' or even substitute things for bricks. When I was a kid I made Lego pirate ships. It didn't matter that I didn't have sails the right shape, I just made some out of paper and cut to fit.
But you did see pirate ship flags on TV first.
It's incredibly hard to actually prove humans actually possess the ability to have genuinely original thoughts, and aren't simply million times more efficient than AI at reassembling existing pieces.
-
@Gustav So how did sails get invented? Someone had to invent them. Someone had to have the idea to do something different.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@Gustav So how did sails get invented?
There are about 50 million ways it could've happened, all of them a variation of someone saw something blown by the wind. Maybe a wagon with a cloth cover got pushed into a lake and then stared moving with the wind, and the owner connected the dots. The idea of things moving in wind isn't particularly hard to randomly stumble upon.
-
@Gustav In which case you have the concept of reasoning, of observation and implementation. Still not a thing AI can do.
-
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
it had to start somewhere.
Real life. Something these AI systems still haven't any experience of.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@Gustav In which case you have the concept of reasoning, of observation and implementation. Still not a thing AI can do.
Reasoning is just about the first thing they made AI do, back when they called it expert systems. Observation is nearly a solved problem by now for the most part thanks to deep learning. Implementation boils down to taking known things and mixing them together.
-
I don't think the problem even hinges on the question of whether AI can create something "radically" new. The problem is more that AI can be used to mimic and recreate works that are in fact very similar to existing works. This would previously take effort and skill, but now something half-assed-or-better is a few clicks/prompts away.
-
@cvi why is that a problem?
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla That's the problem.
Humans can be inspired by something and do something completely different with it.
AI... can't. All it has is the corpus of what has been produced and it's regurgitating that semi-randomly until it produces something that matches statistically with what it is trying to synthesise.
:same-picture:
-
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@cvi why is that a problem?
It's a problem in that it can maybe do it for cheaper than how people have been doing it, which means that people previously supporting themselves by doing that might not be able to do that any more. This is always disruptive when it happens.
Whether it actually happens or not here remains to be seen.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
your soul is where the 'art' comes from and AIs don't have souls.
this is why this discussion won't ever be settled, it's religion
It will be fun to see religious people trying to explain souls if AI gets to the same level as our brains
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
your soul is where the 'art' comes from and AIs don't have souls.
this is why this discussion won't ever be settled, it's religion
It will be fun to see religious people trying to explain souls if AI gets to the same level as our brains
Next you'll be saying there is no Silicon Heaven. Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?
-
@Watson the magic smoke goes up in the air and they travel the world with the wind.
