The cost is less from the design and more from the safety regulations. Best case scenario the state just starts making nuclear power plants, it’s just not a good idea to mix profit incentive with nuclear.

https://i.imgflip.com/4qn7mj.png

It’s value is still great though because it costs nothing. Every time you draw it you may as well have just drew 3 cards, for absolutely nothing.

Could be an issue for some kind of universal translator that has a hard time with proper boundaries that are also regular nouns.

Because one is a black box that very well may just be a much more advanced version of what current AI does. We don’t know yet. It’s possible that with the training of trillions of trillions of moments of experience a person has that an AI may be comparable.

I mean, the likelihood is basically zero, but it’s impossible to prove the negative. At the end of the day, our brains are just messy turing machines with a lot of built in shortcuts. The only things that set us apart is how much more complicated they are, and how much more training data we provide it. Unless we can crack consciousness, it’s very possible some day in the future we will build an incredibly rudimentary AGI without even realizing that it works the same way we do, scaled down. But without truly knowing how our own brain works fully, how can we begin to claim it does or doesn’t work like something else?

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI works. It does not shred the art and recreate things with the pieces. It doesn’t even store the art in the algorithm. One of the biggest methods right now is basically taking an image of purely random pixels. You show it a piece of art with a whole lot of tags attached. It then semi-randomly changes pixel colors until it matches the training image. That set of instructions is associated with the tags, and the two are combined into a series of tiny weights that the randomizer uses. Then the next image modifies the weights. Then the next, then the next. It’s all just teeny tiny modifications to random number generation. Even if you trained an AI on only a single image, it would be almost impossible for it to produce it again perfectly because each generation starts with a truly (as truly as a computer can get, an unweighted) random image of pixels. Even if you force fed it the same starting image of noise that it trained on, it is still only weighting random numbers and still probably won’t create the original art, though it may be more or less undistinguishable at a glance.

AI is just another tool. Like many digital art tools before it, it has been maligned from the start. But the truth is what it produces is the issue, not how. Stealing others’ art by manually reproducing it or using AI is just as bad. Using art you’re familiar with to inspire your own creation, or using an AI trained on known art to make your own creation, should be fine.

Do you actually think artists using AI tools just type shit into the input and output decent art? It’s still just a new, stronger digital tool. Many previous tools have been demonized, claiming they trivialize the work and people who used them were called hacks and lazy. Over time they get normalized.

And as far as training data being considered stealing IP, I don’t buy it. I don’t think anyone who’s actually looked into what the training process is and understands it properly would either. For IP concerns, the output should be the only meaningful measure. It’s just as shitty to copy art manually as it is to copy it with AI. Just because an AI used an art piece in training doesn’t mean it infringed until someone tries to use it to copy it. Which, agreed, is a super shitty thing to do. But again, it’s a tool, how it’s used is more important than how it’s made.

There isn’t really much about eternal torture or damnation back when Satan was still an agent of God, and he certainly wasn’t in charge of Hell. All the talk of gnashing teeth and lakes of fire was originally metaphor for how much it sucked, not literal.

Hell isn’t a place, it’s a state of complete lack of Grace. The idea is that everyone has a 2 way connection to God, and all good feelings and emotions must come from it. People are free to reject that connection by committing mortal sin, but “the line stays open,” as long as someone lives. Honest repentance is accepting the connection back. If one dies before accepting grace again, God shrugs and accepts they aren’t interested, and cuts his side of the line. This leaves an existence with zero positive thoughts or feelings, best case scenario is eternal meh. Of course, it was hyped up to be awful to help convert and maintain control. And, ofcourse, Satan did do a bit of torture here and there, but it was generally all on living folk to test them.

My favorite is the gif of the skubbah diver with a lassear beam on their frickin head.

Lawful>chaotic isn’t about better>worse. If anything, using the gear that came with the product is the definition of lawful in this context. Lawful is more about following the expectations of society. That’s not the full meaning, but close enough for this post. If anything, I would swap true neutral and chaotic neutral.

Don’t forget they had previously been ordered several times to reduce the temperature and refused.

And is that a… Lego brick?

They were all celestial bodies. The rest just got more myth attached to them. The Norse names are all sort of kinda mostly the equivalents of the Roman counterparts, and those are famously where we get the names for the planets.

Sunday

Moonday

Mercuryday

Jupiterday

Venusday

Saturnday

Ther wasn’t a great Norse version of Saturn, so it just kept its name. Even as it is, some of those conversions are pretty flimsy.

What level of abstraction is enough? Training doesn’t store or reference the work at all. It derives a set of weights from it automatically. But what if you had a legion of interns manually deriving the weights and entering them in instead? Besides the impracticality of it, if I look at a picture, write down a long list of small adjustments, -2.343, -.02, +5.327, etc etc etc, and adjust the parameters of the algorithm without ever scanning it in, is that legal? If that is, does that mean the automation of that process is the illegal part?

Sentience is the little hump that we can at least sort of see some evidence of, judging by how similar regions of brains activate in certain circumstances. Sapience is the real tricky one.

Octopi is doubly wrong, it’s Greek, not Latin. If it wasn’t octopuses it should be octopodes, ock-TOP-oh(uh)-deez.

Grizzly Bears is a 2/2 that depicts 2 bears. Implying each bear is 1/1 on its own.

Kiss the sky.

They are called Mondegreens in English, after Sylvia Wright wrote an essay about how she misheard “laid him on the green,” as Lady Mondegreen.

I came here to “correct” you to that, yes. But then it’s not really IPA anymore, and the other character doesn’t make sense now. May as well stick to the more universal system.