I, ChatGPT
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Or maybe there's another reason you haven't answered this:
Because it's not a serious question. It's a ridiculous bit of whataboutism that only exists for purposes of ridicule, and I'm not going to play that game.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
The funny part is that I think you actually believe this garbage
Kind of like (some of) the "sovereign citizens" seem to believe the BS they've read on the Internet, even when they are told differently by a judge. Internet rando vs. someone who graduated from law school, passed the bar exam, practiced law for 20 years, was good enough at it to be appointed/elected a judge, and has been a judge for 20 years. And you're going to argue that he/she is wrong about the most fundamental aspects of how our legal system works??? (Others are clearly just reciting words they memorized because they think those words will magically get their case dismissed or simply to disrupt and delay the courts.)
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
About to start using one of these myself at work. Anyone else doing this yet?
WTFCorp is way too concerned about proprietary data leakage. All that stuff is blocked at the web proxy.
-
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
make it illegal say for Angelina Jolie to ruin the paparazzi's business
I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. IDGAF about Angelina Jolie or most any other "celebrity" and think anyone who does isn't playing with a full deck. And the paparazzi can all die in the car crash that killed Princess Diana.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
a world away from ... objective reality
I see you've met @Mason_Wheeler.
A world away from objective reality is great for, say, a D&D campaign that was suddenly and inexplicably abandoned, but it's not so great for real life.
-
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
rogue automation on Photoshop
I've used Photoshop, although not recently. That must be a new feature, because it certainly didn't exist the last time I used it.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Or maybe there's another reason you haven't answered this:
Because it's not a serious question. It's a ridiculous bit of whataboutism that only exists for purposes of ridicule, and I'm not going to play that game.
I guess I'll accept this as an admission of special pleading WRT AI scraper's business plans.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
it betrays a view of the world so impressively naive it actually hurts.
This. I would love the dystopian idea that anything that isn't explicitly outlawed is perfectly legal and there is no gray area.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
Therefore, any interpretation of copyright law that actively hinders the progress of science and useful arts [...] is presumptively unconstitutional and void.
You should tell that to the likes of YouTube and Disney.
-
@Tsaukpaetra More influential people than me have been saying it for a long time. Unfortunately, when one side has correct ideas and the other has billions of dollars, the correct ideas have a long track record of losing out.
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
The only argument I make in its favour is “honestly it’s not quite as bad as you remember”, not that it is suddenly a land of unicorns and whatnot.
But at least it's not a land of ponies. That would be even worse — definitely a move in the wrong direction.
Man, if fuckin' ponies were realized in the real world... well it would be a different world, wouldn't it?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra More influential people than me have been saying it for a long time. Unfortunately, when one side has correct ideas and the other has billions of dollars, the correct ideas have a long track record of losing out.
I wouldn't call them "influential" if they fail to "influence".
But then again, I hear Elon Musk is going to put a colony on Mars in 2018 or something.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra More influential people than me have been saying it for a long time. Unfortunately, when one side has correct ideas and the other has billions of dollars, the correct ideas have a long track record of losing out.
I wouldn't call them "influential" if they fail to "influence".
Failure to influence in one specific policy area does not imply failure to influence in general.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra More influential people than me have been saying it for a long time. Unfortunately, when one side has correct ideas and the other has billions of dollars, the correct ideas have a long track record of losing out.
I wouldn't call them "influential" if they fail to "influence".
Failure to influence in one specific policy area does not imply failure to influence in general.
Perhaps they need more Learning.
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
"We photoshop the boobs in every image, it's standard operating procedure."
It's a standard feature in smartphone cameras now. Part of the beauty filter -- smooth out skin, turn circles in moons and make boobs larger. Add boobs first if necessary.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra More influential people than me have been saying it for a long time. Unfortunately, when one side has correct ideas and the other has billions of dollars, the correct ideas have a long track record of losing out.
I wouldn't call them "influential" if they fail to "influence".
Failure to influence in one specific policy area does not imply failure to influence in general.
Perhaps they need more Learning.
I know someone who just loves to Share Knowledge.
-
@cvi said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
"We photoshop the boobs in every image, it's standard operating procedure."
It's a standard feature in smartphone cameras now. Part of the beauty filter -- smooth out skin, turn circles in moons and make boobs larger. Add boobs first if necessary.
I hear boobs are the beauty. Enboobify everything!
-
@cvi said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
"We photoshop the boobs in every image, it's standard operating procedure."
It's a standard feature in smartphone cameras now. Part of the beauty filter -- smooth out skin, turn circles in moons and make boobs larger. Add boobs first if necessary.
They also need a filter for removing moobs.
-
-
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
Channel Nine claimed that the image of Georgie Purcell, an MP from the state of Victoria, had been “inadvertently” altered through an automated process on Photoshop.
They changed her clothes and the complete background, and the headline-worthy thing is a barely perceptible breast size change
-
Spring is here.
Workers show more cleavage.
-
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Or maybe there's another reason you haven't answered this:
Because it's not a serious question. It's a ridiculous bit of whataboutism that only exists for purposes of ridicule, and I'm not going to play that game.
If you're repeating "the burden of proof is on the accuser" like a broken record while accusing people of being criminals without proving jack shit, ridicule is all that's left.
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
make it illegal say for Angelina Jolie to ruin the paparazzi's business
I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. IDGAF about Angelina Jolie or most any other "celebrity" and think anyone who does isn't playing with a full deck. And the paparazzi can all die in the car crash that killed Princess Diana.
Indeed. Makes it a pretty good analogy to the Altman posse, doesn't it?
-
@LaoC What person did I accuse of being a criminal?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC What person did I accuse of being a criminal?
-
@TimeBandit said in I, ChatGPT:
OK, so...a user has a list of historical conversations, I guess? And they're showing them to the wrong users? I think that's the issue here.
Though why was the first guy was giving credentials to ChatGPT? I feel like there's a ton of missing context here.
Filed Under: You don't hate Ars enough...
-
@LaoC No. If you're going to make a claim like that, back it up. Who did I accuse of committing a crime?
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
Spring is here.
Workers show more cleavage.German has the "nice" expression "plumber's cleavage" for this kind of sight.
-
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Or maybe there's another reason you haven't answered this:
Because it's not a serious question. It's a ridiculous bit of whataboutism that only exists for purposes of ridicule, and I'm not going to play that game.
If you're repeating "the burden of proof is on the accuser" like a broken record while accusing people of being criminals without proving jack shit, ridicule is all that's left.
I think he was saying they were guilty of civil stuff. "Tortious interference," IIRC. Of course, leave it to @Mason-Wheeler to jump on this inconsistency to avoid admitting how ludicrous his entire thesis is.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Though why was the first guy was giving credentials to ChatGPT?
: Please generate a new password for me.
-
@TimeBandit said in I, ChatGPT:
ChatGPT is leaking passwords from private conversations
Why would you object to that, you Luddites? This is just ChatGPT learning. And we must not prevent learning.
As per definition:
- It lacked the ability to share other users passwords.
- It was presented a password
- Solely on the basis of receiving and processing the password - without being directly modified in some way - it now demonstrated the ability to share other users passwords.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Though why was the first guy was giving credentials to ChatGPT?
Yeah, that's on him. Don't give out confidential data to outside systems, use a self-hosted service.
That's why any rational IT would not allow MS services to handle all their data, from Windows logins to files to who knows what. But for some reason handing MS the key to your kingdom appears to be normal. Just an aside.
-
@dcon said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Though why was the first guy was giving credentials to ChatGPT?
: Please generate a new password for me.
No. () it looked like he was supplying instructions for reproducing a bug (i.e., log in as this user, with password, then...etc).
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Though why was the first guy was giving credentials to ChatGPT?
Yeah, that's on him. Don't give out confidential data to outside systems, use a self-hosted service.
That's why any rational IT would not allow MS services to handle all their data, from Windows logins to files to who knows what. But for some reason handing MS the key to your kingdom appears to be normal. Just an aside.
I mean...yeah...but...:wtf?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC No. If you're going to make a claim like that, back it up. Who did I accuse of committing a crime?
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla Maliciously sabotaging someone else's business is severely illegal. Nightshade is sabotage in the classic sense, not particularly different from throwing wooden shoes into machinery. Use with extreme caution if you use it at all!
People "sabotaging someone else's business". For some reason, you believe that Nightshade is one such person.
I'm sure there are other examples.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC No. If you're going to make a claim like that, back it up. Who did I accuse of committing a crime?
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla Maliciously sabotaging someone else's business is severely illegal. Nightshade is sabotage in the classic sense, not particularly different from throwing wooden shoes into machinery. Use with extreme caution if you use it at all!
People "sabotaging someone else's business". For some reason, you believe that Nightshade is one such person.
I'm sure there are other examples.
...yes? Not seeing accusations of criminality against anyone.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC No. If you're going to make a claim like that, back it up. Who did I accuse of committing a crime?
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla Maliciously sabotaging someone else's business is severely illegal. Nightshade is sabotage in the classic sense, not particularly different from throwing wooden shoes into machinery. Use with extreme caution if you use it at all!
People "sabotaging someone else's business". For some reason, you believe that Nightshade is one such person.
I'm sure there are other examples.
...yes? Not seeing accusations of criminality against anyone.
Oh, so you were asking for a list of straw men in the conversation? Yeah no, I don't have time for that.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
I don't have time for that.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC No. If you're going to make a claim like that, back it up. Who did I accuse of committing a crime?
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla Maliciously sabotaging someone else's business is severely illegal. Nightshade is sabotage in the classic sense, not particularly different from throwing wooden shoes into machinery. Use with extreme caution if you use it at all!
People "sabotaging someone else's business". For some reason, you believe that Nightshade is one such person.
I'm sure there are other examples.
...yes? Not seeing accusations of criminality against anyone.
OK, now that we've got this irrelevancy out of the way (as predicted), can we all agree that a person making this accusation of a civil tort would not, as you say, be "playing with a full deck?"
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC No. If you're going to make a claim like that, back it up. Who did I accuse of committing a crime?
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla Maliciously sabotaging someone else's business is severely illegal. Nightshade is sabotage in the classic sense, not particularly different from throwing wooden shoes into machinery. Use with extreme caution if you use it at all!
People "sabotaging someone else's business". For some reason, you believe that Nightshade is one such person.
I'm sure there are other examples.
...yes? Not seeing accusations of criminality against anyone.
Oh, so you were asking for a list of straw men in the conversation? Yeah no, I don't have time for that.
I didn't ask you to have time for that. I didn't ask you the question in the first place; it was who said I was accusing people of committing crimes.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC No. If you're going to make a claim like that, back it up. Who did I accuse of committing a crime?
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla Maliciously sabotaging someone else's business is severely illegal. Nightshade is sabotage in the classic sense, not particularly different from throwing wooden shoes into machinery. Use with extreme caution if you use it at all!
People "sabotaging someone else's business". For some reason, you believe that Nightshade is one such person.
I'm sure there are other examples.
...yes? Not seeing accusations of criminality against anyone.
OK, now that we've got this irrelevancy out of the way (as predicted), can we all agree that a person making this accusation of a civil tort would not, as you say, be "playing with a full deck?"
Attributing insanity to those who disagree with your position is an old Soviet tactic for the suppression of dissent. Don't do that.
-
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC No. If you're going to make a claim like that, back it up. Who did I accuse of committing a crime?
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla Maliciously sabotaging someone else's business is severely illegal. Nightshade is sabotage in the classic sense, not particularly different from throwing wooden shoes into machinery. Use with extreme caution if you use it at all!
People "sabotaging someone else's business". For some reason, you believe that Nightshade is one such person.
I'm sure there are other examples.
...yes? Not seeing accusations of criminality against anyone.
OK, now that we've got this irrelevancy out of the way (as predicted), can we all agree that a person making this accusation of a civil tort would not, as you say, be "playing with a full deck?"
Attributing insanity to those who disagree with your position is an old Soviet tactic for the suppression of dissent. Don't do that.
Sorry, my mistake. That was 's post below yours I quoted. Do you see how I can admit my error when someone points it out? You should try that here with your unsupportable claim of tortious interference instead of hoping we'll forget that you said it.
-
Finally, some hybrid between eloquent but hallucinating language models and strictly correct symbolic reasoning:
That sounds actually exciting!
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
And I was not attributing the lack of a full deck to @Mason_Wheeler, but to unspecified s who are obsessed with "celebrities".
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
And I was not attributing the lack of a full deck to @Mason_Wheeler, but to unspecified s who are obsessed with "celebrities".
I know. Unfortunately, I gave him an excuse and avoid answering anything of substance. If I didn't know him better I'd think he was just trolling us.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Or maybe there's another reason you haven't answered this:
Because it's not a serious question. It's a ridiculous bit of whataboutism that only exists for purposes of ridicule, and I'm not going to play that game.
If you're repeating "the burden of proof is on the accuser" like a broken record while accusing people of being criminals without proving jack shit, ridicule is all that's left.
I think he was saying they were guilty of civil stuff.
True, "being lawbreakers" or something would have been better. Still clearly accusations, but nothing selective amnesia couldn't fix.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC No. If you're going to make a claim like that, back it up. Who did I accuse of committing a crime?
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla Maliciously sabotaging someone else's business is severely illegal. Nightshade is sabotage in the classic sense, not particularly different from throwing wooden shoes into machinery. Use with extreme caution if you use it at all!
People "sabotaging someone else's business". For some reason, you believe that Nightshade is one such person.
I'm sure there are other examples.
...yes? Not seeing accusations of criminality against anyone.
Oh, so you were asking for a list of straw men in the conversation? Yeah no, I don't have time for that.
I didn't ask you to have time for that. I didn't ask you the question in the first place; it was who said I was accusing people of committing crimes.
So sorry, the wording should have been "doing severely illegal things". As there are obviously people publishing nightshade stuff ...
-
Filed under : Pedantical weaseling