It’s basically like. Someone drawing a picture. Then watching the buttons you’re pressing on a controller. And then drawing a new picture. And based on the game that they think you’re playing in their head trying to guess what the next picture ought to look like. With no error correction and no conceptualization other than what the next picture should look like.

The… many limitations of this is the inability of image generators to rationalize 3 dimensional space. It can only approximate it based on what it thinks should appear on the screen. It lacks any ability to keep track of variable information. It really is more like a Doom-style hallucination than anything else. Some of the videos on that article are truly bizarre looking. I’d imagine after a few minutes every single one of them would devolve into an endless loop of being trapped in non-sensical geometry or killing the same enemy over and over again as the AI has no way of remembering the enemy existed to begin with, let alone that you killed it.

I’ll be honest I don’t think there is much use in this at all. It suffers from the same limits as any other model AI. Believability at a glance is not believability under scrutiny and if it’s only believable at a glance then there’s not much practical use in it. The advance in computational power and model sophistication required to stand up under scrutiny is massive.

The Nazi’s created rocketry as we know it today and made many innovations in medicine and manufacturing.

Are we going to argue the pros and cons of the Nazi party?

This conversation wasn’t even about the Mongol empire it was about Genghis Khan

“…not at all clear other kings would have done any different…”

Is that the standard now? Comparison? He is still unbelievably evil even by comparison to other evil people.

Him and the dynasty he created were one of the most destructive forces in human history and resulted in the horrific deaths of millions of people. By many metrics, they practiced genocide and ethnic cleansing on conquered populations. They destroyed the books of captured people’s and places of worship. They’re also well known for having destroyed farmland and aqueducts to starve out massive numbers of people. They were butchers. Mass murderers on a skill the world had never seen at that time. He erased entire civilizations from history, ones that we still barely know anything about.

Idk what makes you believe that. These images are and have always been available online. Similar albeit less graphic images appear frequently on news sites all around the world. People don’t support genocide because they aren’t aware of how brutal it is, they support it because they do not view the victims of genocide as human.

That’s a fair and valid criticism of the way western media is censoring the ongoing genocide. I do think there is some merit in reminding people of the brutality that is being enacted on men women and children. I don’t agree that showcasing these kinds of images in this way is the way to go about it. Images of graphic violence can be exploitative, they can be voyeuristic and serve actually to dehumanize victims rather than humanize them. I think photos of survivors with wounds, people being taken to hospital, and the ruins of the area left behind are important and should be spread far and wide.

I do not think that photos of mangled bodies are worthwhile though. I do not feel that images of horrifically torn apart and disfigured remains serve any function beyond satiating a curiosity some have. I feel the same way about photos and videos taken after mass shootings or other large-scale acts of horrific violence. It’s important that people understand what took place, but it doesn’t have to be conveyed in this manner.

Maybe I’m being pointlessly moralistic about this, and should feel that so long as it brings attention to what is happening that it is a good thing that I should support. But I don’t agree with that at all. I do think it’s relevant how we spread information about ongoing genocides and their victims.

I’ve watched videos of it in the past that were posted online. I just disagree that showcasing horrific gore and violence in this manner is necessary. It is necessary for people to understand what’s happening, if they don’t. But in the aftermath of mass shootings and other forms of large scale graphic violence I don’t think it’s necessary to showcase images of dead and mangled bodies. It’s a kind of voyeurism I personally find distasteful and disrespectful to those that died. Pictures of survivors with wounds, hospitals full of patients. Rubble and ruins. Those things are worthwhile in my mind. But not mangled corpses.

I do not think this photo is necessary to be viewed. We know what the aftermath of these attacks look like. The victims and their families deserve peace, not to be made a spectacle.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I think the scale of image believability is logarithmic. Going from “believable at a glance” to “believable under scrutiny” requires an exponential increase in performance compared with going from “not believable at a glance” to “believable at a glance”. The same principle applies to text generation, facial recognition, sound generation, image enhancement, etc. One of the many reasons AI should not be being integrated in many of the ways world governments and corporations are trying to integrate it.

You’ll note I discussed the context subtext and use of the word in my comments. 🙃 that’s what this whole thing has been about… sigh

Can you also stop trying to insinuate that I’m not an anglophone person? It’s fucking weird

I’m reacting to the comment made by the commenter. Those are not semantically the same statement, though. They literally aren’t. It expresses an expectation for others’ bodies to be a certain way and a dissappointment when they aren’t. The word dissapponted is not interchangeable with preference. “I dislike nipple piercings” is not the same thing as “I am disappointed in women who get them.” You intuitively know this too because someone being angry with you implies a direct response to something you’ve done. Someone being disappointed in you implies they had an expectation for you that you failed to meet. It also takes literally nothing from the speaker to clarify this, which the commenter did not.

I have no feelings whatsoever on the subject of whether the commenter likes nipple piercings or not. I do not have nipple piercings and am entirely uninterested in what the commenter thinks about them. I object to men using language that enforces ownership over women’s bodies. As I said in my prior comment, this is an everyday occurrence for us. This happens to us all the time. My body is not your business, and the bodies of random women are not the business of the commenter.

As I said before, how would he materially know how many women have nipple piercings? It’s possible to have them and them not be visible in public. If his gripe was with how many women he’s hooked up with that have them, he would’ve said that not that he’s disappointed in women who get them.

This entire thing stemmed from a simple call out on something the commenter said. A way that his language implied that women’s bodies should be a certain way. It was never a big deal until several men immediately mischaracterized what I said and tried to imply that I am stupid, that I dont know what I’m talking about, that I’m weird, that I don’t speak English lol. One commenter rambled on about his dick. I would’ve left the comment and moved on, that was always my intent. It was the visceral response at the mere suggestion that something he said may have had a misogynistic implication that prolonged this conversation into what it became.

It’s not just based on the dictionary it’s literally what the word fucking means. Jesus christ. Re-read my comments. I have absolutely no desire to continue this. I’ve made my fucking point. Leave me alone.

No, I’m not. If you don’t know what the word disappointed means, you should look it up.

One minute, you’re rambling about your engorged member, and the next you’re demonstrating again that you still don’t understand what I was saying. Fuck off.

That would be true, but for one, the percentage of women with nipple piercings is statistically insignificant. For two, you don’t actually have any measurable way of telling with certainty how popular those piercings are. So it’s not really as comparable to hair color, which you can ascertain at a glance. And even then, I would expect some kind of clarification that this has been obtrusive or obstructive to the speaker. “I’ve been disappointed so many times to find out that my date had their nipples pierced” or something to that effect. Just saying “some women are doing this aesthetic thing to their bodies, and it disappoints me” is not really saying the same thing.

There may be a fundamental disagreement here over whether or not it is valid to feel a sense of ownership over other people’s appearances. “Oh no, that guy would’ve been so cute if he hadn’t grown out a mullet I wish he hadn’t” would be a strange thing to think, let alone verbalize, about a stranger. It implies that by virtue of that man changing some aspect of appearance the speaker has lost something tangible. It might give the speaker pause in that situation to realize that their language kinda makes it seem like they’re entitled to “mullet-less” men. We also have to consider the emphasis that puts on men who do have mullets. The speaker in this case is collectively denigrating all of them for failing to meet their expectation of non-mullet hairstyles, despite those men not knowing the speaker and having nothing to do with them.

Cool. You’re so brave.

Yes, here I am, not making any arguments about his preferences. 🙄

I’m not upset with the concept of disappointment. I’m calling out the fact that saying he’s disappointed with women for having piercings is a statement about how women’s bodies should be. It’s saying that women are beholden to an expectation of how their bodies should be, and that when they have nipple piercings they are failing to meet his expectations of them.

You’re just petulantly refusing to actually respond to what I have said at this point. I don’t care about his preferences.