sun
2yr ago
What does being egregious have to do with this in any way?
Pretty clear to me that the analogy you deployed was deliberately absurd.
But anyway, provided that you clearly label your Pro-White-Women, Anti-Black-Men model as such, go ahead.
sun
2yr ago
If a model only ever returns white women for "good person" and black men for "bad person," then that's not discriminating against anyone since it's not the Harvard auditions, and this isn't actual people you're failing to generate or generating excessively.
Do you really think your example is as egregious as generating perfectly uniform selections for both "good person" and "bad person" (or "criminal" and "Harvard student", for that matter)?
sun
2yr ago
If my model generates pictures of people from an even ethnic spectrum, I do not believe I am discriminating against anyone. It's not the Harvard auditions, and this isn't actual people I'm failing to generate or generating excessively.
If I'm a designer using a generative AI to fill a world of my making, I do not care for "accurate" demographic representation being baked in the model. Either I know exactly what ratios I want and include them in the prompt (and if I'm the type to want "accuracy", I already know who I want to be 13% of the generated population yet 50% of the generated criminals), or otherwise it should give me a selection of 50% male, 50% female, [for race in races generate total*race/races] American presidents.
I see the division between "factual predictors" and "diverse generators" AI models to be quite acceptable and even desirable. Make it explicit and call out those who present their model as one when it in fact has characteristics of the other.
sun
2yr ago
That kind of stuff really turns me off on the "rational cowardly West deceived Ukraine into hating us" propaganda, in particular. Hell, if you ask me, it's more like gigachad strong aura Ukro-Russophobes who rubbed off on the entire West. I do not recall such moods being so visceral among the common folk in the West before.
sun
2yr ago
The current concern is that the actual text of the edict does not limit mobilisation as much as Putin's mouth words did.
sun
2yr ago
So far the pro-Russian propaganda has been leaning heavily on "acktchyually, we are the ones supported by the majority of the world, by the numbers - just look at China/India".
sun
2yr ago
The worst enemy you have no matter what is the man who has you at gunpoint and is issuing orders... he is always the first person you need to kill.
There is no one more sympathetic in WW2 than the soviet citizens who volunteered for the Nazis
Hardly. The Nazis weren't asking nicely. They were asking far less nicely than the Soviet government demanded, by all accounts known to me. It wasn't "accurately accessing that their own government was the greater enemy", it was accurately accessing that Stalin and the Red Army were far and the Wehrmacht and the SS were very, very close - close enough to have them at gunpoint and issuing orders.
sun
2yr ago
The vaccine mandate was ostensibly for the benefit of the people, and those actually harmed by it, I can assume, are much fewer in number than those harmed by Putin's latest geopolitical ambition. Even if I count only Russians and only those who didn't sign up for it.
sun
2yr ago
I think it's a very fair standard that you can't blame your opponent for becoming your enemy when you fucking started the war.
sun
2yr ago
It already feels like where we're going, we won't need big brain 145 IQ contemplators and artists, either.
sun
2yr ago
sun
2yr ago
It's obviously a net benefit to have every member of your society as functional as possible
I don't see a net benefit to give your janitors, for example, high-end mental enhancements (other than pruning "boredom" and "ambition" nodes). My worry is that there will be a class divide between those who get the upper-class mods and those who get the service-class ones.
sun
2yr ago
Sidenote: The way these youtube debaters interact with chat or play videogames when they talk (not in this video) just completely reads decadent society to me.
Like what?
sun
2yr ago
Would you accept it if the player spoke in abstract about the themes his character is talking about, the buttons he tries to press, etc. without actually reciting it in first person?
sun
2yr ago
Not I. I don't find it repugnant to use my imagination, after all. But there's a difference between merely holding the switch to the simulation and controlling it. The more AI is used in a creative endeavour, the more joy of imagining is taken out of it.
"What now - you're going to eat all that stuff in my stead too?!"
sun
2yr ago
Sure, let me try.
Assumption A: A life can be so bad as to be of negative value to the person themselves.
Assumption B: Because of self-preservation artifacts, not all whose lives are negative in value are determined to end them.
Assumption C: Your desire to kill yourself generally increases as your life value drops further into the negatives.
Conclusion: More suicides means more people were pushed from the margins of worse-than-worthless lives into making a correct decision. Of course it would be better if they were raised from those margins, but apparently we can't all have nice things.
sun
2yr ago
The Matrix has a common counterargument that you're not taking into account: its simulation is quite literally in someone else's hands. You become vulnerable and helpless to the reality above the Matrix, and unlike any hypothetical superrealities above ours, you do know this one exists, and would continue to exist after you plug in, filled with all sorts of people who can do whatever they want to your simulation.
sun
2yr ago
So? Your model of the world isn't proven just by demolishing the weakest arguments against it.
sun
2yr ago
Handpicking the most outrageous content isn't "just" holding up the mirror. Indeed, if the only thing necessary to denounce the Wrong People was to let them talk, there would be no need or demand for sneer outlets of all varieties.
Maybe it would be easier to discuss those comics if you linked one.
More options
Context Copy link