Venezuela has accused Donald Trump of making a “colonialist threat” after he said the airspace around the country should be considered closed.
The country’s foreign ministry called Trump’s comments “another extravagant, illegal and unjustified aggression against the Venezuelan people”.
The US does not legally have the authority to close another country’s airspace, but Trump’s online post could lead to travel uncertainty and deter airlines from operating there.
If you don’t see it, I dunno what to tell you.
And you fail to explain whatever it is that makes it AI, let alone why that would be a bad thing. It is on anti-AI people to prove that their beliefs have merit. Careless speculation such as yours is irresponsible, unjust, and is pretty damn likely to hurt real people.
You are welcome to dislike AI - but using that as a crutch for falsified criticism is just plain wrong.
I don’t usually engage with trolls, but my train is late and I’m all out of productive things to do while I wait.
I am not going to debate whether this is AI. If you want to believe it isn’t, you’re welcome to do that. As for why it’d be bad - I believe that a technology that is trained on the work of many artists, without permission or compensation, that puts control of visual - I am not going to call them artistic - outputs under the control of a few tech oligarchs, is bad, and should be boycotted and sabotaged if possible. Even open weight models are, ultimately, usually trained by large corporations, and openly available by their ‘benevolence’. If they decide their next generation model will be closed source, it will be.
I also believe that the sheer amount of both monetary, and physical, resources currently expended on generative AI and related technologies is largely wasted, in a world where we can hardly afford such waste.
Also, please substantiate why using rather clear signifiers of ai generated content to claim something is ai generated is likely to cause harm, and why, in your eyes, ‘pro-ai’ aren’t required to proof the merit of their believes.
Oh, and while we’re at it - do you happen to know whether there is a seahorse emoji?
I have no idea what a seahorse emoji implies, and never had the desire to use one.
Anyhow. I personally believe that AI can be used to empower the common person, provided that it is available and publicly funded. Something along the lines of Switzerland’s Apertus could be very helpful. Be it keeping an eye out for discount goods, pairing news with investments, or determining the legality of a Kavenaugh Stop, AI can make it easier for people to have agency in their lives. But that is dependent on whether we support the establishment of that agency.
I personally feel that anti-AI people are bad for the future of humanity, because they encourage the 1% to become the sole owners of AI, by trying to deter the ordinary person from becoming masters of it. Rejection of tools and power, only ensures it is used by the worst people.
Also, all existing human artists derived their skill and creativity from observing the works of other people. IMO, the same can be said of AI. While an AI currently isn’t fit to independently create original works, eventually it will be able to make great creations, be it in collaboration with a human partner or by itself. It is simply a matter of when that AI becomes capable. Of course, I can’t prove that - but neither can the technology vegans. We will have to see in a couple of decades.
AI, being a technology, will become more economical and effective over time. My gaming rig isn’t well suited for running medium-sized AI like GLM Air, but it is an AM4-socketed machine. When a post-AI boom socket is released, such as AM6, the memory and PCIe lanes for it will be much faster and larger to account for AI usage. It is through the improvement of software and hardware that the progress of AI will march forward. For example, we can expect GLM to run about 30% faster on consumer hardware once MTP is implemented in LlamaCPP. A prompt that took 40 minutes to generate an response for me, becomes 28. Time savings like that, translate into less energy and heat being needed to run AI. It isn’t dissimilar to how aircraft massively improved over time.
As to why the Pro-AI don’t need to prove our beliefs: we aren’t claiming that people aren’t artists, nor are we trying to make other people feel sucky. We just want to do neat things for our folks, without bothering other people. Anti-AI folks tend to throw around accusations and generally be jackasses. It is why court systems and society needs the accusers to prove their points, otherwise they will just bully people for anything and everything.
I’ve explained to you, read that