4 ms·

Is anyone aware of people doing the same for NSFW images? They can easily wipe out an entire industry. No models to pay and to check for legal ages, infinite p

Is anyone aware of people doing the same for NSFW images? They can easily wipe out an entire industry. No models to pay and to check for legal ages, infinite possibilities: just write the pic you want, the massive body part you want, how many genitals are involved and boom. You have your image.

Mumps 4y ago
[0] Was front page recently. [0] (OBVIOUSLY NSFW) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32572770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32572770
- oezi 4y ago
  This certainly begs the question: When does DALLE2 become viable to generate movie clips of up to 10 minutes in length? 10 min * 60 * 24 FPS = 14400 images ~ 2^13 So maybe 10 years?
- napolux 4y ago
  Thanks!
- napolux 4y ago
  Looks like there’s a lot of road ahead for this, but def. A starting point
staticassertion 4y ago
I agree, it does seem like this makes a lot of sense for the adult industry. But seemingly all of the models that get released have a built in censor for that sort of thing from what I understand.
canoebuilder 4y ago
- canoebuilder 4y ago
  I speak from a place of compassion. Let’s make it past the Great Filter, our descendants at least, and not wank ourselves to death.
- TaupeRanger 4y ago
  Andrew Huberman - How to Cherry Pick Neuroscience "Studies" to Pretend Something is True So You Can Make Lots of Money as a Health Guru Personality
  - canoebuilder 4y ago
    I’ve listened to a number of his podcasts, I’ve never gotten that impression at all. He comes across as a well versed, legit scientist. And there is lots of other evidence to back that up, not just my impression from a few podcasts, publications, tenured professorship at Stanford, etc. But in this case, does it really need extensive scientific study? Just think about it and look around. The thing our entire biological systems are largely oriented around, reproduction, and human connection/contact. And then we have this super stimuli version of that always on tap at a moments notice, but it is a trap, a mirage. It might be best to minimize exposure to that since in the end it doesn’t/cannot produce the same results. I’ve not even listened to that link yet, I just caught glimpse of it the other day. I think it’s just starting to seem obvious to more and more people. The evidence seems to accrue daily as to the social detriment it causes. Are there any specific examples of cherry picking you have?
    - TaupeRanger 4y ago
      Almost all of his diet/neuroscience/health claims (outside of commonly known things, like "exercise is good for you") are at best a gray area, and at worst just flat wrong. That is because we really don't know much about the brain and its relationship to human experience and behavior - and so anyone claiming to know how to improve your life with "neuroscience" is a con artist. Same with diet, which he also harps on constantly. For almost every non-obvious claim he makes about something, there exist studies that directly contradict him. And, being a good con artist, he conveniently ignores them. Here are some things he has claimed that are not at all settled science, although he talks as if they are and leaves out the contradictions: - Artificial sweeteners cause insulin resistance - Light alcohol consumption is detrimental - You can "hack your brain chemicals" with supplements to achieve some desired effect on your mind - We know what role neuromodulators play on really high level cognitive concepts like "creativity" - Increasing the diversity of your gut microbiome has positive health effects Frankly, no one's life will be any different from listening to Huberman or from doing anything he tells you to do, aside from those things everyone already knows about (like exercising, sleeping an appropriate amount, and not eating a bunch of refined sugar). If there IS some change outside of those, it is just as likely to be the result of random chance than from taking Huberman's advice, because there is no evidence that anything he says (outside of the obvious) is actually beneficial or worthwhile. To your question - yes...it absolutely DOES need a scientific study. Huberman's claim is porn literally DESTROYS YOUR BRAIN. But again, the studies are terrible and there are many contradicting studies that he would never point out - he's trying to make you think he knows what he's talking about and has something worthwhile to say (when he actually doesn't).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Mumps 4y ago

[0] Was front page recently. [0] (OBVIOUSLY NSFW) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32572770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32572770

oezi 4y ago
This certainly begs the question: When does DALLE2 become viable to generate movie clips of up to 10 minutes in length? 10 min * 60 * 24 FPS = 14400 images ~ 2^13 So maybe 10 years?
napolux 4y ago
Thanks!
napolux 4y ago
Looks like there’s a lot of road ahead for this, but def. A starting point

staticassertion 4y ago

I agree, it does seem like this makes a lot of sense for the adult industry. But seemingly all of the models that get released have a built in censor for that sort of thing from what I understand.

canoebuilder 4y ago

canoebuilder 4y ago
I speak from a place of compassion. Let’s make it past the Great Filter, our descendants at least, and not wank ourselves to death.
TaupeRanger 4y ago
Andrew Huberman - How to Cherry Pick Neuroscience "Studies" to Pretend Something is True So You Can Make Lots of Money as a Health Guru Personality
- canoebuilder 4y ago
  I’ve listened to a number of his podcasts, I’ve never gotten that impression at all. He comes across as a well versed, legit scientist. And there is lots of other evidence to back that up, not just my impression from a few podcasts, publications, tenured professorship at Stanford, etc. But in this case, does it really need extensive scientific study? Just think about it and look around. The thing our entire biological systems are largely oriented around, reproduction, and human connection/contact. And then we have this super stimuli version of that always on tap at a moments notice, but it is a trap, a mirage. It might be best to minimize exposure to that since in the end it doesn’t/cannot produce the same results. I’ve not even listened to that link yet, I just caught glimpse of it the other day. I think it’s just starting to seem obvious to more and more people. The evidence seems to accrue daily as to the social detriment it causes. Are there any specific examples of cherry picking you have?
  - TaupeRanger 4y ago
    Almost all of his diet/neuroscience/health claims (outside of commonly known things, like "exercise is good for you") are at best a gray area, and at worst just flat wrong. That is because we really don't know much about the brain and its relationship to human experience and behavior - and so anyone claiming to know how to improve your life with "neuroscience" is a con artist. Same with diet, which he also harps on constantly. For almost every non-obvious claim he makes about something, there exist studies that directly contradict him. And, being a good con artist, he conveniently ignores them. Here are some things he has claimed that are not at all settled science, although he talks as if they are and leaves out the contradictions: - Artificial sweeteners cause insulin resistance - Light alcohol consumption is detrimental - You can "hack your brain chemicals" with supplements to achieve some desired effect on your mind - We know what role neuromodulators play on really high level cognitive concepts like "creativity" - Increasing the diversity of your gut microbiome has positive health effects Frankly, no one's life will be any different from listening to Huberman or from doing anything he tells you to do, aside from those things everyone already knows about (like exercising, sleeping an appropriate amount, and not eating a bunch of refined sugar). If there IS some change outside of those, it is just as likely to be the result of random chance than from taking Huberman's advice, because there is no evidence that anything he says (outside of the obvious) is actually beneficial or worthwhile. To your question - yes...it absolutely DOES need a scientific study. Huberman's claim is porn literally DESTROYS YOUR BRAIN. But again, the studies are terrible and there are many contradicting studies that he would never point out - he's trying to make you think he knows what he's talking about and has something worthwhile to say (when he actually doesn't).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]