You’re taking a screenshot of a social media post at face value. If you look anywhere else it’s not regarded as a prominent notion that he secretly made it himself. Hell, I can’t even find reference that he worked in ceramics.
I’m not particularly pro-ai, but people being so against it that they’re willing to take screenshots of Tumblr as proof rather than consider someone’s argument is … Annoying.
It’s proof, not that he made the toilet, but that they didn’t read the post they claim to have “definitely read.” We’re discussing the post.
And you might not pay attention, but I do. I checked your post history, where you claim AI is intelligent, and AI art is art, this is not the first AI thread you’ve defended AI in, and your most recent post (rather than comment) is on stable diffusion. You are very much pro-AI, and you’re being disingenuous by claiming you’re not.
? You mean where I shared a picture I thought was fun something like a year ago?
Fuck off with claiming you know how someone feels on a topic when you’re clearly not even able to understand what they’re saying.
Yes, I believe AI is intelligent. With the caveat that the bar for intelligence is low enough to include thermostats.
Yes, I think AI art is art. *Shitty, low effort art, like from a dentist office.".
Without knowing to what you’re referring, I can’t tell you why you’re full of shit with your “defending AI” claim. I’ve defended the academic discipline of AI, which is different from the generative AI tools we seem to be discussing. I’ve told people they don’t understand AI tools, but that’s not “defense”.
Did you read the ones where I’ve said that we intuitively feel that the way LLMs scrape data is unfair, but that that unfairness isn’t represented in copyright law, so rather than trying to twist current law to fit, we should understand how it actually works and adjust laws to match our sense of fairness?
What about where I’ve pointed out that LLMs can’t think, but generate statistically likely continuations of input, hence propagating misunderstanding and creating misunderstanding because people are using a language tool as though it’s a knowledge tool?
Did you consider that maybe I’m not pro AI or anti AI because I view it as a tool, and one wouldn’t be pro belt sander or anti belt sander, but rather irritated at people who misunderstand them, frustrated that we’re spending billions on the least useful sander for what it’s being used for because it’s the most magic looking, and annoyed that we’re jamming sanders into word processors when no one asked for that?
Anyway, we were talking about how you’d rather believe random Tumblr screenshots than reality when you got caught up trying to enforce your orthodoxy that anyone who doesn’t passionately hate anything that could be perceived as being AI related or supporting is clearly an ignorant techbro fetishizing the singularity. You’ll be damned if you need to understand what any of those words mean to know that you hate them.
I don’t know that I give a shit what the post says in regards to if he made it or bought it for the purposes of the question. It’s irrelevant to the point actually being discussed, to say nothing of “seemingly not true”.
Also, since you’re very concerned with addressing what the post says: people overly obsessed with enforcing the form that art takes are fascists, per the post. Feel like you’re kinda missing the forest for the trees there.
You’re taking a screenshot of a social media post at face value. If you look anywhere else it’s not regarded as a prominent notion that he secretly made it himself. Hell, I can’t even find reference that he worked in ceramics.
I’m not particularly pro-ai, but people being so against it that they’re willing to take screenshots of Tumblr as proof rather than consider someone’s argument is … Annoying.
It’s proof, not that he made the toilet, but that they didn’t read the post they claim to have “definitely read.” We’re discussing the post.
And you might not pay attention, but I do. I checked your post history, where you claim AI is intelligent, and AI art is art, this is not the first AI thread you’ve defended AI in, and your most recent post (rather than comment) is on stable diffusion. You are very much pro-AI, and you’re being disingenuous by claiming you’re not.
? You mean where I shared a picture I thought was fun something like a year ago?
Fuck off with claiming you know how someone feels on a topic when you’re clearly not even able to understand what they’re saying.
Yes, I believe AI is intelligent. With the caveat that the bar for intelligence is low enough to include thermostats.
Yes, I think AI art is art. *Shitty, low effort art, like from a dentist office.".
Without knowing to what you’re referring, I can’t tell you why you’re full of shit with your “defending AI” claim. I’ve defended the academic discipline of AI, which is different from the generative AI tools we seem to be discussing. I’ve told people they don’t understand AI tools, but that’s not “defense”.
Did you read the ones where I’ve said that we intuitively feel that the way LLMs scrape data is unfair, but that that unfairness isn’t represented in copyright law, so rather than trying to twist current law to fit, we should understand how it actually works and adjust laws to match our sense of fairness?
What about where I’ve pointed out that LLMs can’t think, but generate statistically likely continuations of input, hence propagating misunderstanding and creating misunderstanding because people are using a language tool as though it’s a knowledge tool?
Did you consider that maybe I’m not pro AI or anti AI because I view it as a tool, and one wouldn’t be pro belt sander or anti belt sander, but rather irritated at people who misunderstand them, frustrated that we’re spending billions on the least useful sander for what it’s being used for because it’s the most magic looking, and annoyed that we’re jamming sanders into word processors when no one asked for that?
Anyway, we were talking about how you’d rather believe random Tumblr screenshots than reality when you got caught up trying to enforce your orthodoxy that anyone who doesn’t passionately hate anything that could be perceived as being AI related or supporting is clearly an ignorant techbro fetishizing the singularity. You’ll be damned if you need to understand what any of those words mean to know that you hate them.
I don’t know that I give a shit what the post says in regards to if he made it or bought it for the purposes of the question. It’s irrelevant to the point actually being discussed, to say nothing of “seemingly not true”.
Also, since you’re very concerned with addressing what the post says: people overly obsessed with enforcing the form that art takes are fascists, per the post. Feel like you’re kinda missing the forest for the trees there.