@PatellaFarmer's banner p

PatellaFarmer


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 27 16:26:22 UTC

				

User ID: 1750

PatellaFarmer


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 October 27 16:26:22 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1750

I do not have much to add to the main arguments, and I don't follow other sites that well, but I can confirm (with little credibility) that e621 averages around 60% explicit (by their standards) content. Here is a hastily thrown together graph (expect this to 404 at some point in the future) where you can see the history of post rating over time. With how tagging works on e6, I would claim 50% of questionable content is aimed to excite the mind in the same way explicit content is. This leads the overall percentage to something like 68% explicit. Despite the pleas from the staff (sorry Mairo I love you and everything you do, but you're wrong) the site is uploaders are primarily focused on pornography.

I'm late because I don't sign in often, but thanks for the correction.

Sitting here in a climate controlled room, I can say that I would much rather die behind the wheel instead of as a passenger of an automobile.

Because of how inscrutable LLMs (and AI in general) are I have an innate fear that the conclusions they reach are not based on the same reasoning you or I might make. Like it could be a completely alien way of thinking that arrives at the same solution. Without knowing (specifically) how AI achieves it outcomes, I am weary about accepting their solutions blindly.

except for voters out of the area (e.g. overseas) or disabled (e.g. bedridden), voting should be done in person on Election Day

How does this increase election fairness or security? If it is secure enough for the distant or disabled to vote via mail, is it not secure enough for everyone else?

Edit: Just to be extra clear, I am not making a claim on whether mail in voting is good or bad. In my view, the threat of voter fraud by mail in ballots remains regardless of who its restricted to. Therefore there are only two reasonable options: 1) Disallow mail in ballots entirely; 2) Accept the risk and allow mail in ballots entirely.

How do you (personal or impersonal, your choice) find the time and energy to ever add to discussions, here or elsewhere? I enjoy reading other peoples posts here and seeing the discussions that form. I could read for hours. But I find it hard to sit down and write out my thoughts on anything just because of how long it takes. I want to pay my debts to the community in the local currency, but it's just so draining to write anything more than one or two sentence replies (which is probably why I'm more lively in real time conversations). Reading and lurking just feel like an infinitely more productive use of my time, even for topics I claim to be passionate about.

Is it just a matter of exercising my writers-muscles? Is it my method of commenting, is there some more efficient way to comment? Do other people put hours into posts with any amount of substance? How do I avoid the feeling that my time on any corner of the internet is pissing into an ocean? Is most everything on here peoples' first edit? (I find myself going back and forth, writing and re-writing a lot of what I have to say). Maybe participating just isn't made for me.

This is generally a question of "Why is commenting so hard and how do I stop lurking?".

(This comment took somewhere between thirty and forty minutes to make as a point of comparison. I have no idea if that is a lot or a little. It feels like it is so much more than it should be).

What does EA mean? I've seen a few people use the term but I guess I'm out of the loop. (Not electronic arts I don't think).

Maybe loops were a bad example. To be fair, I never wrote anything more than the bare minimum in assembly. I don't have deep knowledge of it and went for the first thing I could think of. The main point was C provides a bunch of niceties on top of assembly. And Python provides a lot of niceties over C. My mathematician peers would probably love to write their for loops in the style of for i,j,k ∈ +Z^3; i,j,k <= 10 { } which is a lot more abstract than loops in previous languages. Eventually it might become For all positive integer 3-tuples each value less than 10 { }. Heck maybe even For all the points in a cube with side length 10 { }. We lose some specificity, choosing which direction to iterate over first, but we are rewarded with reduced conceptual load.

I am not a historian, but I can see parallels between your art-cyborgs and computer programmers through the history of programming. I am told, through peers, media, professors, and culture, that in the beginning days all programs were made by hand; every operation scrutinized and thought out. But as computer-time because cheaper and programmer-time becoming more expensive, other programming languages were created as abstractions over the previous languages. C simplifies the construction of loops (which seem horrible in assembly). Python removes pointers (which are a pain-point for many programmers). Github co-lab and GPT-3 can remove a lot of boilerplate code with good prompts (though I've never used them, so they may not be that wonderful). Matlab, SPARK, lisp, and others can probably fit into the progression, but I am unfamiliar with them.

It seems that, inevitability, programming will be further and further abstracted away from the origins of programming and what the computer is actually doing. People of course still do some work in assembly (but it is usually niche from my understanding). People still use C (sometimes the problem really is a nail). And programming in general hasn't been overrun with computer generated functions that can generate complex elements from plain english.

I expect though, that the next wave of programmers are going to be like the art-cyborgs. They are going to be adept at automating 80% of the work with AI and then the rest is going to be manual work to fix errors or edge cases and combining multiple functions to form a complete program. This AI automation is just another layer of abstraction for the programmer from what the computer is actually doing. If programming used to be the translation of English to machine instructions, and now it's the translation of English to code, eventually we will have the machines translate for us and programming will be the art of typing the right words into the computer machine.

i.e. The next programming language is English and programmers are just the ones skilled at putting the right words and symbols into the computer to get the right answers out.

But to not wander too far away, I feel the same thing about art or whatever previously unfathomably inherently human skill is done in the realm of AI (perhaps music?). AI generated images are a tool that future artists might use to enhance or speed up the translation of idea to canvas. Not too dissimilar from the transition of physical to digital art (but as I said, I'm neither an artist nor a historian). Even if the art is purely collage-style, I don't think that makes them have any less art. Making a collage still requires skill, and given a magazine with scissors it is hard to stumble into a good creation by pure chance. Even still, can a sufficient description not be art by its own merit? Books have the ability to paint wondrous pictures leveraging your imagination (unless you suffer from aphantasia). Maybe it's not fair to compare writers to painters and illustrators, but that is a different argument than saying it's not art.

To summarize because I need a conclusion and am not a writer: AI art is a tool that will be used by artists to quickly iterate on ideas. This parallels computer programming which used more abstract languages to help programmers quickly iterate on ideas.

Isn't a limiting factor of unions' ability to bargain the employer's cost of firing everyone, and then hiring and training new employees? If the unions were to argue (without caving) for a crazy amount, like one million dollars per year per member, then it would be more cost-effective to replace the entire work force. It doesn't seem like it is possible for union members to inflate the cost of their labor far above what it is worth (cost of training could make paying an inflated salary preferred in the short-term). Unless there are laws about companies firing their entire workforce/an entire union, which there could be (maybe in France, I've heard they have strong laws supporting unions) but I am ignorant about laws surrounding unions.