5 ms·

I don't get why your question is getting unvoted. This is a serious question. For engineers and "normal people" as well : why bother learning ?

narag 4y ago
That's not a serious question, it's the very definition of trolling. You can replace Stable Diffusion with any other subject to learn, and that particular doom scenario with a similar one or, if you don't feel very inclined to ellucubrate, just say the good old "why learn anything when we all are eventually going to die and be forgotten". Not cool.
- nbzso 4y ago
  Please, tell me your definition of trolling. Maybe after you help me understand, I will explain to the illustrators why they must prompt with text instead of drawing? Assuming that I don't learn is wrong. I have a local installation of SD with a lot of models to test. The only useful thing in this gizmo is the Control Net module or maybe the Photoshop plugin for outpainting. You can upload your linear representation (sketch) and generate. But in essence, this is not progress. I don't extend my drawing ability or produce any original work by synthesizing all the available artworks. The long term negative effects are obvious. After 3 to 5 years, kids will not bother to draw at all. In my view, this is not progress for humanity, there are a ton of scientific data about the importance of drawing for development of the mind. The same applies to every human form of creation. You cannot beat the ultimate "calculator" with a model trained on all human intellectual production. Don't get me to start on corporations and greed and how they will view the necessity of human labor.
  - narag 4y ago
    Please, tell me your definition of trolling. You enter a room where people are discussing a technical subject, trying to find ways to collaborate and have a better understanding and then you start giving your speech about the dark future of humanity, education, poverty and politics. Picture yourself in the physical world doing that and imagine the reactions. Why do you think it's acceptable online?
  - nbzso 4y ago
    First answer for the trolling "argument": Because of freedom of speech. Second answer: I am quite capable, technically speaking, to assess the technology. I don't see the benefits for humanity in A.I. "art" generators. And implementing A.I. outside the narrow use cases, which must be regulated in a form close to how we regulate nuclear energy, is not a good thing. Exponential growth is a reality with this one. Outside the hype cycle, a lot of specialists are ringing the alarm bell already. Dismissing their expertise because it represents an obstacle to startup and corporate ROI is not a form of rational thinking. On the other hand, the signs are clear and finally the lack of empathy and ethics in tech industry will come to fruition.
  - epups 4y ago
    Humans did not stop learning to count after the calculator was invented.
- cyrialize 4y ago
  I can empathize with this question. When I go to learn something for my career I find myself asking how much time I should actually dedicate to it when a LLM could do so much better. I want to learn deeper and understand things deeply - but if my time could be spent instead on surface level things and using LLMs to fill in the gaps - it makes it difficult to motivate myself to find time. I still am trying to learn things deeply, I've had this course bookmarked for a while now and have gone through it a bit. I guess for me the core fear I have is that the programming field is fast paced. I could learn something deeply, but someone with a surface level understanding and using an LLM can maybe surpass me. Will an employer pick whoever understands something deeply, or whoever has the solution first? Maybe then the core question here is this: As LLMs improve, is it worth it to learn things deeply for your career, or is it better to gain a surface level understanding and defer to an LLM? There is also the argument that understanding something deeply will allow you to use an LLM much better than someone with a surface level understanding... but I still have that fear that that may not matter anymore. I'll still learn things for fun though, so at least I have that!
- blibble 4y ago
  accusing other people of trolling when they're not is trolling
andrewm4894 4y ago
It's going to be very useful to know how all this stuff works so you can apply it or even just understand it, it's strengths and weaknesses. The is still a lot of stuff to happen and be done before any of it near enough useful and safe and reliable to be just let loose, if anything will be more and more need for "humans in the loop" as we maybe delegate some stuff to be a bit more ML assisted or even semi autonomous. The original question is a bit "why bother with anything?" so a little hard to answer I think the way it was phrased.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
creata 4y ago
1. Because it's fun. 2. Because "all the machines will learn how to create and control themselves and powerful elites will offload the burden of governments to control us?" is a ridiculous sci-fi scenario, and the chatbots aren't nearly as good as so many people pretend they are.
WalterSear 4y ago
The rational options are to embrace the change, or violently >and materially< oppose it. Sitting on ones hands is only sensible if you don't think it's actually a threat.

narag 4y ago

That's not a serious question, it's the very definition of trolling. You can replace Stable Diffusion with any other subject to learn, and that particular doom scenario with a similar one or, if you don't feel very inclined to ellucubrate, just say the good old "why learn anything when we all are eventually going to die and be forgotten". Not cool.

nbzso 4y ago
Please, tell me your definition of trolling. Maybe after you help me understand, I will explain to the illustrators why they must prompt with text instead of drawing? Assuming that I don't learn is wrong. I have a local installation of SD with a lot of models to test. The only useful thing in this gizmo is the Control Net module or maybe the Photoshop plugin for outpainting. You can upload your linear representation (sketch) and generate. But in essence, this is not progress. I don't extend my drawing ability or produce any original work by synthesizing all the available artworks. The long term negative effects are obvious. After 3 to 5 years, kids will not bother to draw at all. In my view, this is not progress for humanity, there are a ton of scientific data about the importance of drawing for development of the mind. The same applies to every human form of creation. You cannot beat the ultimate "calculator" with a model trained on all human intellectual production. Don't get me to start on corporations and greed and how they will view the necessity of human labor.
- narag 4y ago
  Please, tell me your definition of trolling. You enter a room where people are discussing a technical subject, trying to find ways to collaborate and have a better understanding and then you start giving your speech about the dark future of humanity, education, poverty and politics. Picture yourself in the physical world doing that and imagine the reactions. Why do you think it's acceptable online?
- nbzso 4y ago
  First answer for the trolling "argument": Because of freedom of speech. Second answer: I am quite capable, technically speaking, to assess the technology. I don't see the benefits for humanity in A.I. "art" generators. And implementing A.I. outside the narrow use cases, which must be regulated in a form close to how we regulate nuclear energy, is not a good thing. Exponential growth is a reality with this one. Outside the hype cycle, a lot of specialists are ringing the alarm bell already. Dismissing their expertise because it represents an obstacle to startup and corporate ROI is not a form of rational thinking. On the other hand, the signs are clear and finally the lack of empathy and ethics in tech industry will come to fruition.
- epups 4y ago
  Humans did not stop learning to count after the calculator was invented.
cyrialize 4y ago
I can empathize with this question. When I go to learn something for my career I find myself asking how much time I should actually dedicate to it when a LLM could do so much better. I want to learn deeper and understand things deeply - but if my time could be spent instead on surface level things and using LLMs to fill in the gaps - it makes it difficult to motivate myself to find time. I still am trying to learn things deeply, I've had this course bookmarked for a while now and have gone through it a bit. I guess for me the core fear I have is that the programming field is fast paced. I could learn something deeply, but someone with a surface level understanding and using an LLM can maybe surpass me. Will an employer pick whoever understands something deeply, or whoever has the solution first? Maybe then the core question here is this: As LLMs improve, is it worth it to learn things deeply for your career, or is it better to gain a surface level understanding and defer to an LLM? There is also the argument that understanding something deeply will allow you to use an LLM much better than someone with a surface level understanding... but I still have that fear that that may not matter anymore. I'll still learn things for fun though, so at least I have that!
blibble 4y ago
accusing other people of trolling when they're not is trolling

andrewm4894 4y ago

It's going to be very useful to know how all this stuff works so you can apply it or even just understand it, it's strengths and weaknesses. The is still a lot of stuff to happen and be done before any of it near enough useful and safe and reliable to be just let loose, if anything will be more and more need for "humans in the loop" as we maybe delegate some stuff to be a bit more ML assisted or even semi autonomous. The original question is a bit "why bother with anything?" so a little hard to answer I think the way it was phrased.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

creata 4y ago

1. Because it's fun. 2. Because "all the machines will learn how to create and control themselves and powerful elites will offload the burden of governments to control us?" is a ridiculous sci-fi scenario, and the chatbots aren't nearly as good as so many people pretend they are.

WalterSear 4y ago

The rational options are to embrace the change, or violently >and materially< oppose it. Sitting on ones hands is only sensible if you don't think it's actually a threat.