Yeah. The demo needed to take him to task years ago. The fact they waited until the election is a political move and decision. And a poorly thought out one
Yeah. The demo needed to take him to task years ago. The fact they waited until the election is a political move and decision. And a poorly thought out one
The fundamental problem is all those results are on people with abnormal brain function. Because of the corpus calusotomy.
It can’t be assumed things work that way in a normal brain.
People do make up things in regards to themselves often. Especially in the case of dissonance. But that’s in relation to themselves, not the things they know. Most people, if you asked what op did will either admit they don’t know or that you should look it up. The more specific the question the less likely to make something up.
Funny thing is, that the part of the brain used for talking makes things up on the fly as well 😁 there is great video from Joe about this topic, where he shows experiments done to people where the two brain sides were split.
Having watched the video. I can confidently say you’re wrong about this and so is Joe. If you want an explanation though let me know.
Or, the words “i don’t know” would work
You’re right, it’s not. It needs to know what things look like. Which. Once again, it’s not going to without knowing what those things look like. Sorry dude either csam is in the training data and can do this. Or it’s not. But I’m pretty tired of this. Later fool
Once again you’re showing the limits of AI. A dragon exists in fiction. It exists in the mind of someone drawing it. While in ai, there is no mind, the concept cannot independently exist.
Generative AI, just like a human, doesn’t rely on having seen an exact example of every possible image or concept
If a human has never seen a dog before, they don’t know what it is or what it looks like.
If it’s the same as a human, it won’t be able to draw one.
I wasn’t the one attempting to prove that. Though I think it’s definitive.
You were attempting to prove it could generate things not in its data set and i have disproved your theory.
To me, the takeaway here is that you can take a shitty 2 minute photoshop doodle and by feeding it thru AI it’ll improve the quality of it by orders of magnitude.
To me, the takeaway is that you know less about ai than you claim. Much less. Cause we have actual instances and many where csam is in the training data. Don’t believe me?
But you do know because corn dogs as depicted in the picture do not exists so there couldn’t have been photos of them in the training data, yet it was still able to create one when asked.
Yeah, except photoshop and artists exist. And a quick google image search will find them. 🙄
Then if your question is “how many Photograph of a hybrid creature that is a cross between corn and a dog were in the training data?”
I’d honestly say, i don’t know.
And if you’re honest, you’ll say the same.
It didn’t generate what we expect and know a corn dog is.
Hence it missed because it doesn’t know what a “corn dog” is
You have proven the point that it couldn’t generate csam without some being present in the training data
I honestly agree. The moment she won the primary i knew it was lost.
It would be hard to have been worse than Trump. But that’s hardly an endorsement when a literal rock would have done better.
The idea stems from the propaganda tool that would be if it were state owned. Other countries would seriously discourage or ban its use, but as it is useful they’d need a replacement. Hence a thousand shitty ones.
That’s not in anyone’s interest. It’s the surest way to have a thousand national search engines which are all shitty. National walled internet Gardens etc
Break it up instead
Mr Maduro accused the opposition of producing fake evidence to contest the result of the election and said the US was behind what he described as a farce and a coup attempt.
Wouldn’t be the first time
Nor should what they produce be copyrightable in any form. Even if it’s the base upon which an artist builds.
Also, it should all be free.