AI Derangement Syndrome / Anti-AI artists / Pro-AI technocultists / AI "debate" communities - The Natural Retardation in the Artificial Intelligence communities

linchan said:
This got published?
Click to expand...
No. This is barely at the quality of a high school essay.

There's no author, no journal and no copyright information. The formatting (not to mention the text) is extremely sloppy and unprofessional. It looks like it was written in Word.
It's designed to look like an academic paper in order to dupe people who don't know any better.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Kiwi2Shoes, George Geef, Advanced Garbage and 16 others
Miss Violet Beauregarde said:
Someone made a study that equates img models to that of a database. You should check it out.

View attachment 6541908View attachment 6541909View attachment 6541912View attachment 6541913View attachment 6541914View attachment 6541916
Click to expand...
I'll talk more about it in the "Guide to AI" thread I'll do, but Stable Diffusion's job is basically to take an image of static and gradually de-static it over a number of steps to turn it into a coherent image which follows a text prompt. The attention mechanism is what helps guide the process of de-staticizing by taking in an image (though more specifically a sequence of vectors representing one part of an image each) and integrating certain features of the text prompt "into" it. This doesn't mean that Stable Diffusion is 100% deterministic every time, anyone can figure that out the moment they tried clicking "Generate Image" twice in a row with the same text prompt. Attention is a "guiding part" for the de-static process, not the end-all-be-all determiner of what the final image looks like.

The fact that the guy is talking about how the AI "remixes" shit when your text prompt is not directly something in the dataset Stable Diffusion is trained on is hilarious, it literally defeats the entire point of his essay about how AI just "copies" stuff - it's not really a static database if the AI is able to extrapolate concepts to create an image that matches nothing in its training set.

I just can't take this seriously; this nigga really took one look at the Wikipedia page for the attention mechanism, saw the words "query", "key" and "value" and thought "Yeah achktually Stable Diffusion is one giant relational database". These people are ridiculous and in terms of being "AI experts" should be treated as such.*
*Disclaimer: I'm not an "AI expert" either but at least take more than ten minutes to research a concept, dude
 
  • Like
Reactions: George Geef, Casca Enjoyed It, Ether Being and 13 others
Account said:
No. This is barely at the quality of a high school essay.

There's no author, no journal and no copyright information. The formatting (not to mention the text) is extremely sloppy and unprofessional. It looks like it was written in Word.
It's designed to look like an academic paper in order to dupe people who don't know any better.
Click to expand...
Anti-AI mobs are easily tricked by faux academic papers.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Kiwi2Shoes, George Geef, Advanced Garbage and 10 others
1729548171091.png
AI is stopping the trees from absorbing CO2 btw
 
  • Lunacy
  • Like
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Mr. Blerg, Sean Shemmy, Advanced Garbage and 21 others
gagabobo1997 said:
AI datacenters burn so much energy that they cause trees to no longer be able to process CO2 because of climate change
Obviously
Click to expand...
What.
I am more confused than before from that explanation. How does climate change makes trees not able to process CO2? If that happened, the trees would surely die off fast due to lack of nutrition.
The trees are still alive as far as we know, even with huge amounts of greenhouse gasses and other stuff in the air. I don't think greenhouse gasses are able to just turn off photosynthesis like that.

Btw, "How does AI turn off photosynthesis" is not something i'd say everyday.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: George Geef, lolcow yoghurt, Toolbox and 9 others
Miss Violet Beauregarde said:
What.
I am more confused than before from that explanation. How does climate change makes trees not able to process CO2? If that happened, the trees would surely die off fast due to lack of nutrition.
The trees are still alive as far as we know, even with huge amounts of greenhouse gasses and other stuff in the air. I don't think greenhouse gasses are able to just turn off photosynthesis like that.

Btw, "How does it turn off photosynthesis" is not something i'd say everyday.
Click to expand...
I think the idea is that plants have a limit to how much CO2 they can process per day.
If CO2 emissions exceed that, then they "process almost no CO2". Which is sort of misleading because they processed a shitload, just not enough to be a sum negative and reduce global levels.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Chen Stirner
Miss Violet Beauregarde said:
Honestly, i am confused as to how that even works. Any explanations? Does the process of generative ai physically stops trees from absorbing co2?
Click to expand...
It's just a retarded child on twitter going "There's like AI now, and like I saw this scary article headline, and maybe like AI made that happen?"

There's no explanation. These people have no thought beyond very surface level correlations. The actual reason cited in the article, from what I understand as a eco-science normie is that the CO2 and Methane trapped in the ground is being released at a much faster rate than normal and effectively replaced what was absorbed.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: BIGGEST BOY, Ether Being and Markass the Worst
linchan said:
The fact that they managed to open more nuclear plants in the US than any environmentalist movement in history alone makes the environmental impact of AI negligible.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the upcoming cool fusion plants.
You know what this means? We need to use more AI tech! That's the pathway to greater power technology!
 
  • Like
Reactions: George Geef, Cnidarian, Ether Being and 2 others
Sargon's wife's son said:
All I have to say to all the artists getting the scanned and stolen get filtered scrub
Click to expand...
I'd say the guilt is at Photoshop and Deviantart who built up a huge database of images then sold them to Ai training models.

Technically, that's not illegal, but nobody agreed to that, and them changing the TnA to state that "hey your art is ours" is really shitty and should be illegal.

If some independent tried to make a LLM of Disney art and copying Disney, Disney would have gone scorched earth on their asses, copyright murdermachine at full power!
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Kiwi2Shoes, George Geef, Big Fish and 11 others
gagabobo1997 said:
That'd be great. If you make a good write up on how they work and post it somewhere I can add it to the OP.
Click to expand...
Edits for the OP:

Adam Duff LUCIDPIXUL made a video defending him, then when everyone hated it, he took it down and put up a new video running damage control.
The original video doesn't seem to be archived anywhere, but here's a clip that was managed to be saved from reddit:
Click to expand...

The original video was found and posted here:


In the Glaze section, add this great takedown of Glaze (worth a read): https://spylab.ai/blog/glaze/

In the Moepi section, you could add the news of his official retirement from the bottom of this post:


As well as @MagneticTowels research into his identity:

 
  • Informative
Reactions: Dunkin DoNUT, Ether Being, secret watcher and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back