Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit before joining the Threadiverse as well.
Same here. There have been tons of technologies coming out recently where my main reaction is “awesome, I can’t wait to use the heck out of that.” If anything my biggest sigh comes from “but I bet the comment threads are going to be littered with tedious doomers moaning about how it’s going to enable the awful stuff they’re imagining instead.”
The issue I’m taking is with:
Louis doesn’t want to improve the show, they want something else entirely.
I don’t think he’s trying to “improve the show.” He’s saying the same thing you are, that he just doesn’t think Black Mirror is a good show.
There’s been plenty of negative portrayals of new technology throughout the history of sci-fi. Heck, the very first one is usually considered to be “Frankenstein”, and it’s all about how new technology can backfire spectacularly.
I think the problem is not the existence of negative portrayals, but the absence of positive ones. There aren’t a lot of shows for folks who want to see a positive view of the future, where technology solves problems rather than always being the source of them. That used to be the domain of things like Star Trek but modern Star Trek is a pale shadow that no longer paints a particularly rosy view of humanity’s future. The Orville took up that mantle, I suppose, but it’s stretched pretty thin.
It doesn’t “show the future”, though. This is exactly what frustrates me so much about online discourse and shows like Black Mirror, some new technology comes along and people go “that’s a terrible idea, haven’t you seen Black Mirror?” As if Black Mirror was some kind of rigorous scientific study that shows the One True Way that the future will unfold.
It’s an entertainment show. Its purpose is to draw in viewers and keep them watching. You don’t do that with episodes that show a new technology coming out and everything turning out fine, you do it by presenting a scary, compelling narrative.
We don’t get freaked out in real life by summer camps and restrict the availability of machetes and other bladed instruments near them because of what happened in that documentary series “Friday the 13th.” It’s fiction. Plot trumps realism.
I don’t think he’s proposing changing Black Mirror itself, he’s saying the same thing you’re saying - that it’s just not a good show.
Like, if I was writing an article criticizing the prevalence of torture porn in modern entertainment, I wouldn’t say “they should release a Saw movie where Jigsaw forces his victims to undergo nonviolent counselling.” That wouldn’t be a Saw movie, it’d be a weird parody of one. I’d just say “Saw is an example of the sort of thing I’m complaining about.”
At the root of this comment chain is a proposal to have laws passed about this.
People can set up their web servers however they like. It’s on them to do that, it’s their web servers. I don’t think there should be legislation about whether you’re allowed to issue perfectly ordinary HTTP requests to a public server, let the server decide how to respond to them.
Pedro Duque wrote a diary entry in orbit in a Soyuz capsule using an ordinary ballpoint pen specifically to disprove this. Don’t know what went wrong with your pen, cheap ballpoint pens fail sometimes regardless of what orientation they’re in.
Also, all pens work in zero gravity. They don’t rely on gravity to feed ink to the point, try writing on a piece of paper that’s held against the ceiling and it works just fine.
And Wikimedia, in particular, is all about publishing data under open licenses. They want the data to be downloaded and used by others. That’s what it’s for.
And yet if one wishes to ask:
Did they have the right to do that?
That is inherently the realm of lawyer speak because you’re asking what the law says about something.
The alternative is vigilantism and “mob justice.” That’s not a good thing.
Stable Diffusion was trained on the LIAON-5B image dataset, which as the name implies has around 5 billion images in it. The resulting model was around 3 gigabytes. If this is indeed a “compression” algorithm then it’s the most magical and physics-defying ever, as it manages to compress images to less than one byte each.
Besides, even if we consider the model itself to be fine, they did not buy all the media they trained the model on.
That is a completely separate issue. You can sue them for copyright violation regarding the actual acts of copyright violation. If an artist steals a bunch of art books to study then sue him for stealing the art books, but you can’t extend that to say that anything he drew based on that learning is also a copyright violation or that the knowledge inside his head is a copyright violation.
They’re saying that the NYT basically forced ChatGPT to spit out the “infringing” text. Like manually typing it into Microsoft Word and then going “gasp! Microsoft Word has violated our copyright!”
The key point here is that you can’t simply take the statements of one side in a lawsuit as being “the truth.” Obviously the laywers for each side are going to claim that their side is right and the other side are a bunch of awful jerks. That’s their jobs, that’s how the American legal system works. You don’t get an actual usable result until the judge makes his ruling and the appeals are exhausted.
In its suit, the Times alleges that
Emphasis added. Of course they’re going to claim their copyright was violated, they don’t have a case otherwise.
It remains to be seen how the case will be decided.
Training doesn’t involve copying anything, so I don’t see why they wouldn’t. You need to copy something to violate copyright.
Right, but the point I’m trying to ask about is whether they’re treating Ghibli specially here. People are reacting as if OpenAI is thumbing its nose specifically at Miyazaki here, whereas the impression I’ve got is that they simply opened the floodgates and dropped restrictions on styling in general.
Style has never been covered by copyright to begin with, so any concerns they might have had about being sued over style would have always been erring on the side of caution. They may simply think that the legal environment has calmed down enough that they won’t be inundated with frivolous lawsuits any more.
Yes, I read the article. But it doesn’t answer my question. Did OpenAI specifically enable Ghibli style, or did it remove the restrictions in general?
Everyone’s pulling out Miyazaki’s out-of-context quote about procedural animation and are interpreting this as some kind of personal attack against him in particular because of it, but unless OpenAI specifically made Ghibli style available without lifting restrictions on others I don’t see a reason to assume that.
Also, an article that calls X “The Nazi Network” is not exactly the most reliable source. This isn’t even about X.
Masad’s comments have come up before and sparked huge outrage before and just like before people are missing the hugely important context here.
He added that coding may become obsolete, but people will still need to continue to work on their fundamentals: “I’m at this point, like agents pilled. I’m very bullish. Like, I sort of changed my answer even like a year ago. I would say kind of learn a bit of coding. I would say learn how to think, learn how to break down problems, right? Learn how to communicate clearly, with as you would with humans, but also with machines.”
The way I see it, he’s thinking that the current-day approach to coding is likely to go the same way that coding in assembly language went when high-level languages and compilers became good and common. The vast majority of programmers never need to think about individual registers or the specific sequence of opcodes needed to perform operations or access memory, the compilers handle that and they do a great job. Only a handful of specialists really need to go down to the metal like that any more.
So too will it be for a lot of the programming that current day programmers do. It’ll still be useful to know how it works so that you’ll know what to ask for and what to do when something goes wrong, but 99% of the code will be done by AIs and will hardly even be looked at by a human. There’ll still be people who are experts at working with programs but the current approach to how that’s done is likely to be obsolete.
Did they specifically allow “Ghibly style?” Or did they just loosen the restrictions on asking for styles in general, and Ghibly style just turned out to be the popular one that memes started snowballing around?
Style cannot be copyrighted.
And if somehow copyright laws were changed so that it could be copyrighted it would be a creative apocalypse.
It is possible to dislike something without believing it should be erased from existence. This is really extreme black-and-white thinking that isn’t remotely realistic.