bitsplease

The caste one he argued that there are already laws in place that cover it, and that what we need instead is to increase education about these existing laws and how they can be used to prevent caste discrimination. There is no point in creating another law that does the exact same thing as existing anti discrimination laws.

For decriminalizing mushrooms he argued that the bill doesn't actually include any provisions for how the medical usage can be implemented or how the required infrastructure can be put in place. When CA was medical only for weed it was frankly a shit show for a long while because it was highly unclear what was actually allowed and what wasn't, he didn't want a repeat.

Whether you agree with either of those arguments is an entirely different question, but the titles of been seeing make it seem like he's just shooting them down for fun - hence my suspicion that this is astroturfing.

One of two things is true - either over the last week he's inexplicably gotten a ton of really controversial bills crossing his desk that are all more newsworthy than anything else over the last few years, and he vetoed every single one. Or half-assed bills like these pass this desk all the time and get vetoed pending better solutions, and they're only now getting overblown coverage as part of a smear campaign. Frankly the latter seems more likely

Serious question - why should anyone care about using AI to make 9/11 memes? Boobs I can see the potential argument against at least (deep fakes and whatnot), but bad taste jokes?

Are these image generation companies actually concerned they'll be sued because someone used their platform to make an image in bad taste? Even if such a thing we're possible, wouldn't the responsibility be on the person who made it? Or at worst the platform that distributed the images -As opposed to the one that privately made it?

Why did no one care about the misuse of the term AI until these image generators or LLMs? Seriously, people have been talking about video game "AI", chess "AI" and stuff like that. It's understood that when people say "AI" they don't mean "general machine intelligence" or anything like that. And frankly LLMs and image generators fit the bill better than most of the things we've used the term for previously

As for "can we stop talking about them", these and LLMs are already having some pretty huge impacts on modern society - for better or worse, it'd be pretty odd for us all to decide to just stop talking about them.

I can't remember the exact quote, or where I read it (I think it might have been Mickey7 by Ashton Edward) but it went something like this

"virtually all technological innovation throughout all time has been first and foremost used for one thing. Easier and better access to Porn. The printing press, the TV, the internet, VR, and occular implants. What we couldn't figure out how to watch porn with, we used to kill each other instead"

Frankly, anyone who first heard about AI image generation and didn't immediately think "oh, people are gonna use that for porn" is incredibly naive lol

The trouble is, if the have the content on YouTube, people will just watch that - even if RT asks them not to. People will always take the most comfortable path to a goal, if they only host on their site, then anyone who wants to watch their stuff has to go on their apps or their website.

Basically they're betting that they have a loyal enough fan base to follow them off YouTube, but recognizing that they won't do it if they don't have to. Whether or not their viewership stays is another question, but honestly it's not that out there. I feel like people have already forgotten that this is how the internet worked for most of its history. Some Gen Z folks are just gonna have to learn how to use more than one app to consume all their content

Yeah honestly it seems like a targeted media blitz more than anything. If you read the actual article, most of his vetos are done for very good reasons - but they're all being posted with reductive headlines

You'd think, but according to OP they were basically the same, slightly worse actually, which is interesting

Yeah and I'm sure there are some artists out there making really novel work using AI as a tool, but a lot of amateur artists made the bulk of their money doing things that AI can just do for basically nothing now.

If I want a character commission for my DnD character, I can get something really fucking excellent in an afternoon of playing around with Stable Diffusion, and that's without any real expertise in AI tools or "prompt engineering". Same with portraits of family, pets, friends, etc - and of course the smutty stuff that has always been the real money maker for low level amateur artists

Those types of artists are already really suffering as a result of the tools available now, and it's only going to get worse as these tools get easier and cheaper to use

I wonder how this will play out for works that are only partially done by AI

For instance, I know some authors are using chatGPT to help brainstorm plot and dialog, so at what % of AI use is a book "human made" vs "AI made"? If I use chatGPT to write half my dialog, is it still my work? What if I heavily edit the dialog I given, while still keeping it mostly intact?

Its definetely going to be interesting to watch how this all unfolds, but yeah I'd definitely be at least nervous if I made my living making art right now

One thing I'd be interested in is getting a self assessment from each person regarding how good they believe themselves to have been at picking out the fakes.

I already see online comments constantly claiming that they can "totally tell" when an image is AI or a comment was chatGPT, but I suspect that confirmation bias plays a big part than most people suspect in how much they trust a source (the classic "if I agree with it, it's true, if I don't, then it's a bot/shill/idiot")

Idk if I'd agree that cherry picking images has any negative impact on the validity of the results - when people are creating an AI generated image, particularly if they intend to deceive, they'll keep generating images until they get one that's convincing

At least when I use SD, I generally generate 3-5 images for each prompt, often regenerating several times with small tweaks to the prompt until I get something I'm satisfied with.

Whether or not humans can recognize the worst efforts of these AI image generators is more or less irrelevant, because only the laziest deceivers will be using the really obviously wonky images, rather than cherry picking

I'm not arguing that you shouldn't speak I'll of the dead or any of that nonsense, hell I was talking shit about her on the day the announced her death, you're welcome to check my comment history. But there's a difference between that and protesting at their funeral.

Shes got family and friends who are grieving - and while she may have been a terrible person (and certainly was, in my view) her family isn't necessarily, and they deserve their time to grieve as much as any of the rest of us.

I'm not advocating for rewriting her history, either the shitty things she did in her career or the "weekend at Feinstein's" shit that had been going on for the last decade, but a funeral just isn't the time and the place to point out what a shitty person she was. A funeral isn't for the dead, it's for the living who are mourning them - and they don't necessarily deserve to be punished for her actions.