romwell

43 ms·

421.
by romwell 3y ago
It is. So is the reality. Highly recommend, A+++, 10/10. "Impact is hard to measure, so let's take budget as a proxy" has got to be the hottest take of the year, and yes, I'm aware it's January.
422.
by romwell 3y ago
Which they only acknowledged because they lost. Horribly.
423.
by romwell 3y ago
>It always rubs me the wrong way when people justify going for more money as "having bills to pay". No they don't, this makes it seems as if they're down on their luck and have to hustle to pay bills which is far from
424.
by romwell 3y ago
>due to the recognition of an absolutely horrific chapter You mean, the absolutely horrific military defeat.
425.
by romwell 3y ago
> and they show how little work they do as a % of all the work. Then as a % if we assumed 90% of all work (keeping all NSF work important) wasn't important. Great, you're simply saying that pretty much all of science has the sa
426.
by romwell 3y ago
Re-read what you wrote yourself. You were using the NSF budget as a measure of importance of its work. You also compared it to the GDP, which only makes sense if you think that all work done is equally important. How very socialist of y
427.
by romwell 3y ago
So you measure importance of work by the amount of money spent on it? My do you have some peculiar ideas.
428.
by romwell 3y ago
>Bandcamp has always lacked a coherent vision. Hard disagree. The coherent vision for Bandcamp is: - Give a place for independent musicians to upload their music to showcase and sell music and merch with one click and no fuss (and a reas
429.
by romwell 3y ago
>Meanwhile any site with a functional search mechanism would be offering more than what Bandcamp offers. Not to the artists who put their music there.
430.
by romwell 3y ago
They could just become software engineers, roll their own solution, start making more money that way, and give up music entirely. Or they could use a platform that was explicitly designed to address their needs without any fuss.
431.
by romwell 3y ago
>Keep in mind that this doesn't actually work as a webshop. Webshop is, like, the entire point of webcamp. Talking as an indie artist here.
432.
by romwell 3y ago
>A basic education in economics (and manners) might be in order. Oh, I apologize. I have idiotism allergies. >"practically all" was the initial statement Yeah, and my original statement still stands. Go open a history book o
433.
by romwell 3y ago
It looks like you have a problem understanding the meaning of the word "all". Specifically, you are confusing all and some .
434.
by romwell 3y ago
>practically all the important work in the world is done by private companies LOL, another one thinks the US is the entire world.
435.
by romwell 3y ago
The plurality of employees are not the innovators that made the breakthrough possible in the first place. People are not interchangeable. Most employees may have bills to pay, and will follow the money. The ones that matter most would hav
436.
by romwell 3y ago
>> Hostess Twinkees, Hohos, Ring Dings, etc. are all very good examples of plant-based food. >Sure, but that's not what people are talking about when they refer to plants in the context of health and nutrition. Citation needed
437.
by romwell 3y ago
>Are you suggesting it's because of plants and not because they're poor? I believe they are suggesting that the diet being plant-based is not a guarantee of health or a long life-span, contrary to what the parent comment impl
438.
by romwell 3y ago
The conversation is about artists being ripped off by people who train AI models on their work without consent (and profit off of that). But sure, let's pretend the conversation is about intelligence of an algorithm that has no agenc
439.
by romwell 3y ago
>My point is that there’s no scientific way to demonstrate that one has made a choice "I'm sorry, your honor, there is no scientific way to demonstrate that I have made a choice to shoot the victim dead. Therefore, I am not gu
440.
by romwell 3y ago
>This only makes it harder for open, non-profit models to compete with large corporations in making AI models. No. This only forces open, non-profit models to think a bit harder about incentives to provide artists for contributing the
441.
by romwell 3y ago
>Where is the line? It’s ok for humans to learn from others work but not a machine? Yes. The machine doesn't get to make its own choices. Once it does, we'll have a different conversations. Presently, humans decide what goes
442.
by romwell 3y ago
>Nobody is being ripped off. >Nobody should feel entitled to such a reset. >Please don't be a bigot. Please don't project. >We should start protecting their rights in law today. LOL. You can't have it both ways: -
443.
by romwell 3y ago
So says you. Models aren't capable of existing without humans in the loop making the choice of which data they get trained on. Consequently, those humans and their choices need to be regulated.
444.
by romwell 3y ago
>There’s no evidence any of us are making choices either. There is very clear evidence that the humans that operate the computers make the choice on which data the model gets trained on. The discussion is about those choices.
445.
by romwell 3y ago
>Clearly, there is no statistical model that can launder IP. Of course. The model isn't making a decision as to what may be used as training data. The humans training it do. >If someone uses Midjourney to produce someone else&#
446.
by romwell 3y ago
> "Under what circumstances would AI art be acceptable then?" Easy! Under the circumstances where the artists whose art was used to train the model explicitly consented to that (without coercion), licensed their art for such
447.
by romwell 3y ago
>Seems lazy to differentiate between types of intelligence without providing any substance as to why you believe one type is more worthy of learning than another and criticizing others for the same laziness Seems lazy to call a genAI mod
448.
by romwell 3y ago
> If an AI views it, and is inspired by it, again, no harm done. There's such thing as consent , I hope you've heard of it. No artist whose work was used to train the AIs consented to such use. Particularly if they released
449.
by romwell 3y ago
>Ah, just like humans who train against the output of other humans. Yeah, and creating derivative work without permission is against the law. >AI models are not fundamentally different in kind in this regard [citation needed] Of cou
450.
by romwell 3y ago
>Generative models are just a tool. Sure. It's just a tool. That need other people's art to work . If it's "just a tool" in and of itself , then there's no problem keeping it away from other people's

More ›