Lemon Varia

Love that redesign. I instinctively imagine them appearing on a website with a low-framerate animation and a compressed boing.mp3

Actually, it's not deliberately removing glaze. Glaze just doesn't work for it's intended purpose and never really did.

heck yes

Honestly, don't give them the time of day, try not to even think about them. Crappy people always exist, not worth worrying about.

cmon man

That is my main motivation for engaging in the discourse, but I only brought that up because you kept calling me a shill. It is irrelevant to the points I wanted to make, yes. You derailed me.

Me calling out your misinformation is not shilling.
It's easy to be stuck in an echo chamber when everything else is "propaganda" to you.
I'm not pro-ai as much as I am against the misinformed anti-ai moral panic that targets hobbyists who have done nothing wrong.

When did I shill for anything? I have spent no money on AI, I don't need to.

I have spent no money on AI products. I have only ever used open-source models and free tools. I am not shilling for any products, just calling out misinformation.

"Their position"? I'm not arguing for their position. The corporations benefit from future energy estimates being really high because it drives investments.

Obviously I don't support Musk using illegal dirty energy. This is a problem that is independent of the technology itself and therefore irrelevant.

I'm saying that AI isn't uniquely bad for the environment. I didn't say that I'm happy with the decisions of every reckless corporation.

Taking a closer look at AI’s supposed energy apocalypse AI is just one small part of data centers’ soaring energy use.

Keep in mind, I said AI *usage*. As in, I can run an image model on my computer, and it isn't worse than playing a video game.
But, if you want to count training as well, most estimates are off because the big companies don't release their data.
Also, please see:
arstechnica.com/ai/2024/06/i...

I could give you sources on these statements if you'd like to become more informed.

The usage of AI is not particularly bad for the environment.
If you knew how it worked, you'd know that it does not and should not fit the definition of plagiarism.
While it isn't a good tool for getting facts, LLMs have many practical uses for those who know how to be critical of the results.

same here

In this case, as Alex claimed in this thread, it's for research.
The best arguments are made when you know and understand all the viewpoints.

Who said anything about hate? Following someone just means "show me this person's posts". It can be for any reason.

If you want to discuss your concerns with someone, I suggest checking out the Are We Art Yet Discord server. It has many very reasonable and knowledgeable leftists.
discord.gg/E6MYZEqHz3

When you just say no, you realize that I have to assume that I'm right. When you actually explain yourself, I can't just do that. It lets me see your perspective, it lets me understand your position. Which is what I've been trying to do, believe it or not.

What am I not comprehending? Tell me instead of just saying that.

I like how you're doing this exact thing. I'm telling you it isn't true, and you tell me that you KNOW.

I want to know how *you* think it works.

Art shouldn't require labor, it being more accessible is a good thing. There is no stealing involved, "stealing" means to deprive someone of something. AI art isn't stealing, it's technically not even copying.

Explain how neural networks aren't pattern prediction machines that don't retain their training data, but are actually *stealing*.

Explain it to me

How do you think it works if not like that?

You are wrong. There are plenty of good uses, and there is no single purpose because it isn't an advancement made by one person or a product made by one company. AI has no agency, it is a tool. The results of the tool are valid. AI art is valid.

omg I just looked this up! Turns out ai art isn't stealing either! It doesn't even fit the definition of a copyright violation 😯

hi c: