deservedly so, there’s enough Loona shit out there that I very regularly see people complain about there being too much of it. I think there’s more stuff of her than of any other single character relative to the age of the source media.
ben_garrison
covid-19_pandemic
kangaroo macropod mammal marsupial
2021 colored english_text hi_res lol_comments url
abdominal_bulge ambiguous_gender anthro armband australia australian_flag belly big_belly canton covid_quarantine deformed_face dialogue element_drop_shadow
evil_grin evil_look feet flag flag_(object) for_a_head fully_inside holding_belly holding_stomach hyper hyper_abdominal_bulge imprisonment landmark macro
medical_instrument medical_syringe nazi nazi_armband organs pecs political_cartoon politics pouch_(anatomy) pouch_vore prehensile_holding prehensile_tail
propaganda scientific_instrument smile solo speech_bubble stomach_zipper swastika syringe tail_holding_flag tail_holding_object text text_drop_shadow trapped
uluru vore what what_has_science_done where_is_your_god_now why zipping_up
ben garrison is obviously hiding an alt account where he posts fetish art
wait really? i wanna see the link
but postcolonial theory is decades old, why are they all acting like it’s something that only sprung up recently?
because now people are applying it in ways that pose a very immediate and significant threat to western interests in the middle east, and discourse about how palestinians are somehow the colonizers didn’t stick, so the best move for maintaining western hegemony is to denounce it. up until now, ignoring it or paying small inconsequential lip service towards it was the better move (because jumping the gun on that would end up being received a lot like republican fearmongering about CRT), but that only remains the case as long as the material impact of it can be contained.
My money is on “commenter is a 14 year old”.
Huh? You have to give them flowers to actually get any romantic events though, unless I’m mistaken.
I remember making a thread about this a year ago.
Honestly, even with the common pitfalls, I would still take specific sexualities over playersexual characters. Playersexual absolutely never feels authentic at all, it feels hollow and like I am just headcanoning the relationship. For me to feel like queer representation is done right, I honestly want it to reflect what actual lived experiences of queer people are, and that does include the fact that not everyone that I could be romantically attracted to will ever be able to reciprocate that feeling. It feels that much better when you actually do find someone who can. Why have I found VNs where gay people clearly outnumber the straights at least two-to-one (and where somehow homophobia still exists despite that???), that somehow still represent that experience better than the average video game? I can understand people wanting escapism and do somewhat enjoy having the extra selection from playersexual setups (I would be devastated if Halsin was strictly straight), but like, sometimes I just want an experience that is more relatable and cathartic. I’m also quite certain that most cishet game writers would probably assume playersexual is the default preference or the safer option so I feel comfortable pushing for characters having defined sexualities in hopes of getting a few games that do it well.
straight relationships as the implied default (Stardew Valley…)
Well, there’s at least one way to solve that problem…
Kind of hard for straight to feel like the default when your romance options are 12 buff furry dudes.
Have you SEEN what Disney has been making lately? They’d gladly pivot to AI slop the second it matches their declining quality standards.
Using it for training data is one thing, but that’s not all that’s being claimed. Merely using it isn’t enough for it to be infringement because fair use can be a defense, and quite likely a viable one if it wasn’t spitting articles out verbatim. People already do use copyrighted data from news sites verbatim for making new products that do something different, like search engines, or for other things that are of significant public interest, like archival. People also do republish articles from news sites, with or without attribution. So for the basic case of copyright infringement by training, NYT has to show that what ChatGPT is doing is more akin to that than it is akin to what a search engine does in order to get something that sticks in court.
They are, among other things, effectively asking for compensation as if people were using ChatGPT as an alternative to buying a NYT subscription, which is just the type of clown shit that only a lawyer could come up with. At the same time, they are also asking for compensation for defamation when it fails to reproduce an article and makes shit up instead. If this case keeps going, those claims are going to end up getting dismissed like a lot of the claims in the Andersen v. Midjourney/Stability AI/Deviantart case did. The lawyers involved know this, they’re probably expecting the infringement for training to stick and consider the others to be bonuses that would be nice to have. Probably also door-in-the-face technique as well.
A settlement is probably more likely still, because at the end of the day OpenAI would much rather avoid going through what this case will require of them during discovery, and the most significant claim NYT has against them is literally demonstrating a failure mode of the model, which OpenAI will want to fix whether or not there’s copyright issues involved (maybe by not embodying the “STACK MORE LAYERS” meme so much next time). After that’s fixed, the rest of what NYT has against them will be much more difficult to argue in court.
In this case, NYT most likely is actually just looking for a cut of the money. Their claims in this are too absurd to actually hold up under scrutiny, nobody is using ChatGPT to bypass NYT’s paywall on whatever years old content they actually have in their training data, people are using browser extensions for that. I would also want to know who is the target of the claims that ChatGPT hallucinating about NYT articles is damaging NYT’s reputation.
One of the more significant things that could happen is that OpenAI could be forced to disclose details of their training data as part of discovery, which they really will not want to do. It would then be pretty easy to gauge exactly how overfit ChatGPT is (GPT 4.0 has 1.1 trillion parameters, depending on what precision they run it at this would be around a terabyte or more in size, I think 3.5 is closer to 350B, if the dataset has less entropy than the model parameters it is effectively guaranteed to start spitting out exact copies of training data). It would also be very useful info for OpenAI’s competitors, so OpenAI will try to get the suit dismissed or settle before then. Deleting their dataset like NYT is demanding is absolutely not going to happen, since at most they have standing to make them delete their articles from their training dataset. Finetuning the model to not comply with NYT-related requests would also be enough to get their model to no longer infringe on their copyrights as well.
They might also be angling for government regulation with a lawsuit making bold claims that they expect to catch headlines and shape public opinion but don’t completely expect to stick in court, since that’s a recurring pattern in a lot of lawsuits against AI firms, like the Stable Diffusion lawsuit which contained absolute bangers like the claim that it stores compressed images just like JPEG compression and that the text-prompt interface “creates a layer of magical misdirection that makes it harder for users to coax out obvious copies of training images” (this is actually in the announcement for that lawsuit, I’m not making this shit up. It’s really not surprising that most of that suit got thrown out).
There’s no real endgame for them where they get anything further than a cut. AI companies can still train on copyright-free or licensed data and over time will get similar results, so there’s not really anything that can be done to stop that in general. Copyright-reliant industries can certainly secure themselves a better position within that, though, where they might be able to gain either a steady income from licensing fees or exclusive use of their content for models under their control.
There are Clevo laptops (I think Clevo basically manufactures stuff that is whitelabel and sold by someone else) that have card slots for GPUs, but I think they’re not a standard form factor. That’s most likely what you’d find instead of a socket, less because of space concerns (because the GPU has a bunch of required hardware that has to go somewhere either way and the port is not that big by comparison), and more for reducing latency for the memory. Look up a picture of an A100/H100 SXM, that’s essentially as space efficient as a socketable GPU can get. And those use HBM which is currently way too expensive and hard to manufacture to go in any consumer GPU, so there needs to be space for the VRAM which takes up nearly as much space as all of that power infrastructure.
We’re just going to uncover a whole DC Capitol cruising scene by the end of this aren’t we?
Hope they had fun.
Meta and Google open sources PyTorch and Tensorflow so people can hopefully make one better than the other.
That’s a bit optimistic at this point… PyTorch is basically the Windows of machine learning libraries – it’s not particularly great on its own merits, because a lot of core features (XLA, jit compiling) are clearly added as afterthoughts and have a lot of very apparent issues, but everyone uses it because everyone uses it. It is a perfect expression of why maybe “move fast and break things” isn’t such a great philosophy for important libraries.
I think of random furries online who just dislike AI art
A few people I know are actually getting harassment, up to and including death threats from this group. Unfortunately those are also part of that movement and tend to be some of the ones freshest in my mind at any given time.
If you go further down the thread, he is arguing back and forth with someone, and is basically proposing historical racism as an alternative to historical materialism.