prototype_g2

Listen, I know that the term "AI" has been, historically, used to describe so many things to the point of having no meaning, but I think, given the context, it is pretty obvious what AI they are referring to.

It's not even generative

It doesn't need to be generative to be AI.

It’s a scraper that uses already available information to then “learn”.

That's just every single "AI" product out there, that's how they work: They scrape data from all over the internet, create a model that makes predictions based on that data. Chat-GPT doesn't understand anything. It is simply a really complicated model which predicts what word is most likely to follow a given sequence of words. These "AI" aren't inteligent, nor are they creative. They, by their very nature, stay as close as possible to the data they are given and never deviate, as a deviation would mean inaccuracy.

From an historical point of view, the word "AI" simply means "cool new technology". That's what it has been used to describe, while people think that AI means "artificial person", like we see in the movies. So we need to be careful while using this word, because it can mean so many thing to the point that it has little meaning.

I would say this is an overall positive: The more people are aware of how easy it is to create fake this with AI the better, I would say. That would make people less likely to fall for it in the future, especially for something with greater consequences than just a parade that didn't exist.

I don't see the logic.

I think we can all agree that genocide is bad, right? And we can all agree that is happening in Palestine is genocide, correct? And therefore we would like to elect someone who would be more likely to stop the genocide.

The Democrats don't seem to want to stop... But neither do the republicans. I don't see the argument.

To my understanding, neither party has any plans to stop the genocide so what the point of contention? I understand that simply voting will do nothing to fix anything, but picking the lesser evil (which is still evil) will buy us more time. Point is, voting for Trump wouldn't be any better, nor voting for a 3rd party due to the flaws of the First Past The Post voting system.

If one should not vote for the Democrats, then who should we vote for? Trump? Seriously, what's your plan?

Really? I didn't know that! What is it called? How can I use it?

Honestly, I don't see why CSS theming is important. The customization is nice and all, but that's not going to make people switch to Firefox. There are many other things that could be improved, like adding tab grouping. I use this extension called Tree Style Tab which I cannot live without. Firefox having something like that by default instead of an extension would be nice.

However, having said that, OperaGX did find quite a lot of success by simply making it easy to theme the browser, so I can see where they are coming from.

So... They are outsourcing fact-checking to a BOT controlled by...?

Whoever controls the BOT can control what is considered the truth. If the people in control of the BOT have any biases, those biases will be programmed into the BOT.

Philosophy is fine and all but we can't forget that from a practical standpoint, all this philosophizing is useless. We can't live our day to day lives operating under the belief that the material world doesn't exist and using The Problem Of Knowledge as a way to dismiss empirical evidence by stating that we can't be sure if the material world even exist is impractical and useless. Remember: Philosophy is completely useless. The only value you will find in it is the development of critical thinking skills.

Just imagine if a murdered caught red handed could get away scoot free by just saying "Hey, you can prove the material world exist, therefore you can prove the victim ever existed!"

It's the problem of knowledge all over again. Something which philosophers have been debating for centuries. But I highly doubt you have studied any of it.

That whole thing of "facts are just opinions" is nothing more than the devaluing of empirical evidence and turning observable facts into a matter of opinion, turning any and all political discussion into a shouting match where nothing ever comes of it because "it's just my opinion". This propaganda tactic is called "The Fire hose of Falsehood".

I could go on and on about the nature of knowledge and the evolution of science, but I highly doubt you would care as you do not seem to know even the most basic things about The Problem of Knowledge and choose to go the self-contradictory skeptic route of "Knowledge doesn't exist".

Edit: I would just like to add that just because our sense are 100% reliable that doesn't mean that everything is false.

Nope.

When humans make art, they are constantly making decisions. Decisions, decisions, decisions. With every stroke of the pen, with every color (not just a generic pink, blue or yellow, but specific tones and shades of those), with every everything they to while making that piece, they are making a lot of micro-decisions. Those decisions are made in respect to the person that is making the art, as their personal life experiences are what dictate how they make such decisions, even if they don't notice it.

AI art is not like that. With AI, you type a prompt and outcomes an image. The user does not have a say in any of the micro-decisions that when into making that piece. The AI it self isn't making any decisions either, it is just making the mathematical weighted average of what images with a description with similar tokens look like, and simply copying said decisions. The AI does not decide, it simply regurgitates previous decisions.

People that say that AI could be used as a tool to help artists clearly as never pickup a pencil to draw. The thing that makes an artists voice, that makes that art theirs are the decisions they make while making their art.

When you are drawing something, you are constantly making small micro-decisions with every stroke of your pencil, and those decision and how you make them is what makes art so beautiful, as no two artists make those decision the same way and each artist as a certain consistency in those decisions that evolves with them as a person. As such, art is so much more than a pretty picture, it is a reflection of the person who made it. Those decisions are also the fun part of making art.

AI art doesn't let you make any decisions: you type the prompt and out comes an image. An image made of an weighted average of human made images with a similar description. You have no say in the micro-decision the machine makes, you have no say on where exactly the pencil strokes go. Therefore this machine is useless for artists. You might say "Just edit the image!", but that doesn't help either, as editing the image still doesn't give you that micro-level of decision making. Also, editing a flat image with just one layer is just as useful as any other image form any search engine image search result. Unlike text, which can be easily edited to be exactly what you want.

I know their might be some wait to integrate machine learning into art, but right now the tools available don't do that.