u/Nyashes

The passion job tax is real, most people in "passion" profession are heavily underpaid and exploited until bills slowly eat away at whatever fun you may still be having working. Source: working in one such sector.

Bah, disons que 1B s'entraîne tout seul, donc à part démontrer la forme de gouvernance du projet, pour voir l'intérêt matériel, il faudrait un truc qui est déjà trop gros pour une personne seule avec une carte nvidia, donc dans les 10~12B FP16.

1B, c'est très petit pour parler d'un "équivalent de ChatGPT", c'est plus un toy qui tourne dans une fenêtre Firefox. J'imagine que c'est plutôt une preuve de concept?

Thanks! I used NovaFurryXL_ilV140 and then iterated on it using KritaDiffusion with the same model.
The Comfy workflow for the base image is a bitch and a half and is mostly disabled for that one since it was a quick 1-hour job. I can hook you up if you want tho!

Dogwhistles for Trump bootlickers who also happen to like AI, that guy's probably an idiot.

Trump's tantrum about "SI" is the best thing to ever happen to the pro-AI movement; now those guys just come out and identify themselves immediately, so you know who to block.

An AI space is a space moderated by people who like AI for other people who like AI. A trans space is a space moderated by trans people for other trans people. Notice how the topic of the space is IRRELEVANT to whether "it's an X space"; people who are X, like Y, or do Z are allowed to talk about things that aren't X, Y, or Z.

THE SAME WAY THE CHICKEN LADY SUBREDDIT IS A TRANS SPACE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE

The fuck do you think an AI space is? DAIA? If you like trains and also AI, you'll be banned from the train space at worst or discouraged from participating at best, so you make a space for people who like trains and that is AI-positive. That's an "AI space"; then you guys try this like it's a playbook:

https://preview.redd.it/kuz3aytx8twh1.png?width=921&format=png&auto=webp&s=652612b1df4da77b27dfac7ee42c442b50d4174d

So she created a subreddit, arguably since the more popular equivalent probably banned AI, you went in to ask her to ban AI on hers as well using an heavily brigaded poll like anti AI extremists always do and hoped that would do what exactly?

Can you just leave AI spaces alone for the love of god? Mute the god-damned subreddit and let live.

It can reinforce opinion; hearing your peers state the same opinion as you, stronger than you would, might slowly make you comfortable with expressing these opinions more strongly as well.

Sounds like a God argument of some kind; AI isn't god; it remains limited by its user and is better at some tasks, worse at others. So far, people have had success with decomps, and people haven't tried protecting against decomp, so we'll just have to wait and see if we want to know whether AI-assisted decomp is better than AI assisted decomp defense.

I think Mistral Large 4 preview claimed better results than GLM on cyber?

I don't know or care; Dario Asmodei is a nutjob who surrounded himself with a bunch of other people with a similar savior complex of "only we can be trusted with this power"; of course, the nutjobs are gonna do nuts shit. Whoever tries to evaluate those nut shits through a reasonable lens will fail or be wildly wrong.

Anthropic are the craziest guys in the AI race right now, the ID thing is likely due to their fear of Chinese distillation.

I was just responding to "No one is going to be going around looking for AI-tagged worlds." AI as a secondary quality indicator is relatively indirect in both directions, so it's not ideal for me. I mentioned that I feel people with a moral stance around it might prefer an affirmative tag rather than a negative tag like "vegan, " "kosher," or "Halal" since it lets the person caring about the tag ALSO set the rules around it, rather than expecting understanding of said rules on everyone else.

I really don't want to know or understand how or what makes worlds AI-free enough; that's not my religion, and I don't want to accidentally upset people because I'm not up to date on what is and isn't pure enough. You really shouldn't want to trust people like me with your own consumer choices; you should trust people like yourself instead. That's why affirmative tags are always better.

I would activity look for AI assisted world, AI assistance can increase the scope and quality of a project someone wanted to make in a first place, and fill in places they wouldn't have been able to otherwise. This has worked for me quite well so far. I would be slightly resistant to an AI generated world since it's likely nobody wanted to make it enough in a first place, quality of what the AI came up with aside, chances are that if nobody wanted to make it enough, it's also unlikely most people, including me, would want to play it enough.

At the end of the day though, those are both an indirect, secondary signal to some quality metrics, full AI generation reveals inauthenticity, which is usually bad, AI assistance correlates to a larger scope/more ambitious project, which is usually good, but I'd rather these be the tags, since e that's how I'd use them.

People who have a moral objection to AI should look for a "no AI" tag instead of an "AI" one, VRchat can automatically grandfather everything before 2022 into it, and then people who go out of their way to hand craft an experience or enjoy it can use and curate it themselves.

So far, AI has mostly shown cybersecurity risks as far as P(doom) is concerned, and so far as well, an effective, complete defense against AI cyberattacks is AI cyberdefense. In that specific case, and likely in any future domain where attack and defense are two sides of the same capability, uncensored open models have proved MORE beneficial than censored closed models.

With closed models, only a subset of actors are allowed to use the dangerous capability; these actors, through incompetence or malevolence (hi Mr Altman, how's the IPO looking?), have unleashed chaos on other actors. If these actors tried to defend themselves, they wouldn't be able to unless they got whitelisted to use the closed model, and with the type of government the US has right now, you can imagine that getting on the whitelist isn't exactly a moral or diplomatic process. Conflict happens, and most actors are defenseless.

With an open model, potentially everyone has equal capabilities of attack and defense, with larger actors having more capabilities than smaller ones. That's exactly the status quo of violence right now; it takes a nation-state to overpower the defense of another nation-state of similar size; it takes a multinational to overpower a multinational, etc. It might not be ideal, but this scenario at least doesn't move the status quo. Just imagine a world where ONLY the US had nuclear weapons; there'd probably be a crater in place of most of Eurasia.

Last but not least, at least for now, there are severe diminishing returns on AI capabilities vs. compute power, and defense appears slightly favored, so people actually need to be bigger to succeed at an attack, not equal size.

4 **LITRES** par image?! Ce n'est plus du watercooling, c'est un parc aquatique dans la salle des serveurs.

To be clearer, an ontological difference doesn't mean that the difference is important or noteworthy to begin with, but if you admit the existence of some closer-to-god immortal soul outside of the observable universe, remote-piloting a flesh bag, and admit that art always comes from the soul and not the flesh bag, then no purely material machine or being (lacking said soul) can produce art by definition.

In the same vein, a soulless demon or philosophical zombie wouldn't be able to produce art either; even with total cognitive parity or even superhuman cognition, it would still be missing the actual "source".

Obviously, that only stands as long as you refuse to define what part of the 'art' supposedly comes from the soul and what part comes from a cognitive or mechanical process of execution, and as often in theology, if you keep pulling the thread and confront the evidence, you eventually unravel the entire cloth and realize that, if that soul is doing anything, it is just as imperceptible and unverifiable as said soul itself. There is no soul, and there is likely no "je ne sais quoi" either. The premise is dogmatic, so the conclusion is as well, but only an idiot wouldn't expect the pope to follow his own goddamn religious dogma x)

The catholic church IS dualist; to them, there is an immortal soul that machines lack. If I believed in an immortal soul, then I'd agree with him as well, IF souls exists THEN there is an ontological difference; the problem isn't the reasoning, it's the premise.

As far as the real world is concerned, the existence of a "je ne sais quoi" (or straight-up actual soul) is at the very least heavily debated, and basing reasoning on that invokes the "garbage in, garbage out" clause; if you have no idea how true the premise is, you have even less idea how true the conclusion is, even with perfectly sound reasoning in between.

If it's that bad and I were the GM, I'd just make up an exploitable weakness or avoidable resistance on the spot that I know the party can do something about at the time asked, and if that doesn't work, I'd make it even more extreme the next time until they do something about it.

Players defaulting to MMO rotation is usually a worse outcome for enjoyability than the improvisation balance cost.

Information is only as useful as the difference between what you can do with it and what you would do otherwise.

Example: Knowing the enemy has high AC, if all you have are AC-targeting strikes, has a usefulness of exactly 0, but knowing it when you have almost equivalent force missiles at the ready does a ton.

Similarly, "when" matters; RK in combat can only help as long as you have a way to use it available at a moment's notice; RK in town or the day before lets you buy stuff or prepare different spells.

It's a general complaint I have about GMs sharing information; if resources were spent to acquire information helping less than using that resource on some boring evergreen actions, you're just encouraging your player to not interact with your mechanics and throw evergreens all day. Your players, aren't being boring; you are. This encompasses the "The enemy likes cinnamon" GMs (too scared of spoiling to ever give anything that could be imagined as mechanically useful) as well as GMs giving save information to their prepared caster when said caster is already in front of the enemy rather than in the morning or the previous day; in both cases, that's how you get slow x4 and other similar spellbook gore.

What I'm getting at, I suppose, is that, as codified as it is in pf2e, it barely matters when the same information that the rules say you must be getting varies so much in usefulness depending on how the campaign is constructed overall, so it's pretty much impossible to make an absolute statement about "how strong" such a build would be.

The picture isn't a Goomba fallacy. If you look closely, the guy asking for "labeled AI use" doesn't have a bat nor an aggressive expression, but everyone behind him does. By asking for disclosure, you ask someone to put themselves in the line of fire of an angry mob that you're statistically not a part of. Nobody wants to stand in front of an angry mob, whether the person asking is part of that exact angry mob or not is irrelevant to the question.

I'd say solving some of the hardest unsolved Mathematical problem of our time is a pretty good use case, in addition to being impressive. In addition, on a personal level as a VR user, AI is the reason we are getting so many more high quality VR ports these days. Finally, as a society, there has never been as many open source software securitization in history, with magnitude mores patches than in the past, in no small part thanks to modern LLMs.

AI is useful, it's not a "maybe in the future" or "you need to project yourself", we're already there. You're confounding profitability with usefulness since, even if your company can produce 100 "thing" per day and AI brings it to 200, if you can still only sell 100, it just means your employees can meet quota in the morning and slack off in the afternoon, which is give or take the effect observed currently.