@CeePlusPlusCanFightMe's banner p

CeePlusPlusCanFightMe

Self-acceptance is bunk. Engineer that shit away.

0 followers   follows 5 users  
joined 2022 September 05 17:01:33 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 641

CeePlusPlusCanFightMe

Self-acceptance is bunk. Engineer that shit away.

0 followers   follows 5 users   joined 2022 September 05 17:01:33 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 641

Verified Email

it's possible that courts will start demanding a chain of custody for art, but I can't imagine that's terribly likely given the insane logistical challenges involved in enforcement.

There's already cases of people online claiming to have fallen in love with chatbots. Only a matter of time.

I think that (1) ai video looks about a year behind ai art and (2) ai art is about a year from being able to reliably deal with physically complex scenes with many moving parts. So 2 years?

I did the More Leaders Modmod!

The coding was extremely low-quality and the Python was probably buggy as hell. But it was mine.

EDIT: Wait, I think Ashes of Erebus did end up incorporating some of my work! How's that project going, by the by?

I'm kind of underwhelmed by the Huel Black Chocolate flavor. It's... very okay. Any suggestions on things I should add to it for additional flavor?

At the moment I'm just mixing it with whole milk.

Leaving aside whether "passing" as a concept is intrinsically problematic (probably? man, hell if I know) I definitely think there's pretty strong (for me) delineations between degrees-of-passing.

  1. I cannot distinguish this person from being a cisgendered man without them telling me verbally.

  2. I can tell this person is attempting to pass as a woman, but my hindbrain is continuing to helpfully inform me that this person is a man.

  3. I can tell this person is a trans woman based off of specific conscious cues, but she passes successfully enough to where my hindbrain perceives her as a cis woman.

  4. As far as I can tell this person's a cis woman.

"Passing", depending on context, either means (3) or (4). I definitely will accidentally misgender people who fall into categories (1) and (2), since talking with or about them involves constantly overriding my typical social scripts for dealing with people I've internally categorized as one gender or the other. I don't think that my unconscious sense of other peoples' gender actually distinguishes between "cis" and "trans".

As an aside, trans people are definitely susceptible to the Gaudy Graveyard Effect where the trans movement tends to be identified by people in categories (1) and (2) because that's where all the controversy is centered. Culture war stuff aside I don't think most people have any visceral problem with trans people in categories (3) or (4).

The process of losing weight is mostly eating a more normal amount of calories and engaging in physical activity

Worth pointing out that diet and exercise alone have extremely poor intent-to-treat efficacy, generally between 2% and 4% of body weight as measured by most studies. For instance, see https://www.nature.com/articles/0803015 . Medication dramatically improves weight successfully lost (see also: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2032183)

To be fair, I think the only real hate for transracial people comes from the social-justice left; as far as I've heard nobody moderate to conservative has shown the slightest bit of interest. Admittedly this is also because the social-justice left is by far the segment of society most interested in any given person's race.

There's a reason the Rachel Dolezal transracial flareup happened to be around a college instructor! (Because if, say, the head of the National Rifle Association was transracial nobody would care even a little bit. Why would they?)

Why? I feel that is an impulse worth exploring.

as an aside i'm curious about how much Shutterstock got paid for the training data they sold to OpenAI.

I expect this to work right up to the point where there's an economic downturn and customers look around for line items they can cut from their budget.

EDIT: Ahh, that was probably not actually right given that shutterstock's subscription plan is actually fairly reasonably priced.

For the record I'm definitely not convinced that "80% +- 20% chance" is a coherent thought.

Here's a thought experiment: I give you a coin, which is a typical one and therefore has a 50% chance of landing heads or tails. If I asked you the probability it lands on heads, you'd say 50%, and you'd be right.

Now I give you a different coin. I have told you it is weighted, so that it has an 80% chance of landing on one side and 20% chance of landing on another (but I haven't told you whether or not it favors heads or tails.) If I asked you the probability it lands heads when flipped, you should still say 50%.

That's because probabilities are a measure of your own subjective uncertainty about the set of possible outcomes. Probabilities are not a fact about the universe. (This is trivially true because a hypothetical omniscient being would know with 100% certainty the results of every future coinflip, thereby rendering them, by a certain definition, "nonrandom". But they would still be random to humans.)

Yeah, I'm concerned about the "destruction of the human species" angle. I've been mulling over whether in surviving timelines TSM is disproportionately likely to get destroyed by China, thereby stalling AI advancement and also plunging the world into a depression since everyone needs their stuff.

Eh, I doubt it's anything that logical. "Pretty sure that X" is, I think, just a colloquialism whose meaning is synonymous with "roughly 80% chance of X", similar to how "I'm basically certain of X" cashes out to "roughly 98% chance of X". Do you think of these statements as being fundamentally different in some way?

So I actually saw just a couple days ago someone released a proof-of-concept that used GPT-3 to substitute for the "human" part of RLHF (reinforcement-learning-with-human-feedback), and apparently it worked rather well at avoiding really blatant Goodharting; see https://openreview.net/forum?id=10uNUgI5Kl . Given the obvious interpretability advantages of an AI whose "thoughts" are represented in human-readable English, I wouldn't be all that surprised if this kind of thing scaled way way up is how we get AGI.

So, my suspicion is that we no longer need fundamental advances for AGI, and the advances that are necessary are just in scaling. Which would be exciting if it we had any particularly robust ideas for dealing safely with actors of above-human intelligence.

Posting another comment because I should have credited you that you make a good point about editorial images also being a big chunk of the stock photo business, particularly for political events. Travel guides are also an excellent use case for which you'll generally want actually-human photographers. (Though even for political events and public figures, it's not universal that this is necessary-- see https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/galaxy-brain/62f28a6bbcbd490021af2db4/where-does-alex-jones-go-from-here/ as an early prototype.)

I added a bunch of minor leaders, but I didn't do any of the mechanics behind Minor Leaders in general.

I... did not much like the Hamstalfar.

I've gotten the impression from trans people I see on social media-- trans women, mostly-- that aesthetics are very important to them, and surgery and hormones help a lot with this. They want not only to be a woman, but also an attractive woman. And why wouldn't they? Attractiveness is an important quality-of-life determinant and I disapprove of pretending it's not.

Most of my thoughts on this are driven by the practicalities of things we can do right now; I see no reason, assuming all technological restraints were lifted, that anyone shouldn't be able to do anything they want with their bodies.

Similarly, I feel like the only strong arguments against transitioning genders stem from the fact that our bio-engineering isn't up to snuff.

Would you require monogamy from the woman? And if so: why?

Hell yeah, dude. Remake yourself as someone hotter! Nobody can stop you! FUCK THE NATURAL ORDER.

it does seem fair to not want to be the test legal case for AI art

I think there's also currently the quality factor-- right now AI art honestly kinda sucks and I have to go through dozens of generations to get something half-decent. I expect this to get change very quickly over the next several months, since as Gwern says, attacks only get better.

Yeah, but worth considering the inconvenience involved in having to track which rights you have purchased to which media, especially if you're a small business using a bunch of them. AI art lacks this issue, since you know nobody has the rights to the image because it's unique.

And people using stock images are people who are, for the most part, running small businesses, not consumers who we might expect to be lazy.

I was wondering about that-- imgtoimg is a possibility, but it also could just be successive iteration on prompts until you get something close enough to the original. Especially for some of the more-generic images.

Only way to know for sure is having the proof contain the prompt and random seed.