"I'm okay.Fuck you Jack."
Bethesda was literally in charge of the QC for that title.
Some are generic mutations. The first one on the list is a recessive mutation in a single family in rural Africa. There are documentaries on it with interviews.
It impacts about ten living people, who grow up into surprisingly normal males and are very clear they are male.
The growing a penis at age 12 is a mutation which happens in exactly one family in rural Africa. There are something like ten living people who this has happened to, and they are all pretty clear they are men.
But so does Motion Picture Roberto.
Shapell Corby was cought dead to rights trying to traffic pot into Indonesia.
Instead of the death penalty, she got special treatment and finished her sentence in Australia.
You know that didn't work at all in South Africa, right? Or Rodesia.
The guy with "three neural nets"
No, I said he had three servers for Neural Networks. Want to take a guess on how many servers he has for other uses? I mean, it is his literal job.
Do you really, truly, honestly not know what Open Source means? Fuck! you don't! Okay. I can help.
From IBM.com
Open source software (OSS) is source code developed and maintained through open collaboration. Anyone can use, examine, alter and redistribute OSS as they see fit, typically at no cost.
An example of a high profile Open Source Neural Network project is Llama 2.
Llama 2 is the next generation of Meta's open source large language model. It is free for research and commercial use, making it a great project to contribute to. It has a large community support from both Meta and Microsoft and is ideal for those interested in large language models and natural language processing
So to repeat, Llama 2 (by Microsoft / Meta partnership) has freely available source code AND is free for research and commercial use.
There are versions of the Neural Network you can get that are already trained, or you can, as you pointed out, use Open Source training data OR you can compile your own training data set to supplement (or even replace) an open source set.
For what it is worth, I think that most of the ways that Large Language Models will be used will be a net negative. I am frankly shocked at the low standard of teaching and the low skills and "care factor" of teachers. It seems counterproductive to give teachers and their managers, who don't seem to have standards or accountability, access to LLMs to plan their lessons for them and then mark the work of their students.
But this is changing the subject. You said that people would not be able to produce the art they wanted, due to commercial control of the technology and the derivative services.
So the question is: Did you know that was a lie?
Are the Chinese white today? I can never keep up.
I mean, I am pretty sure that the Chinese Empire was an Empire.
Guy, you know that no one really owns the technology, right? Lots and lots of Neural Network projects are open source, OR rely heavily on open source implementations inside a larger framework.
If you wanted you could build a server using cheap (second hand) commercial off the shelf (CotS) parts, compile your own Neural Network model (or three) and then run them on your own hardware.
I had lunch today with someone who has three servers they use for running experimental versions of very recent Neural Network architectures.
I admit that I don't fucking trust Google or Microsoft who are rolling out services accessible through phones etc, but I have never trusted Google or Microsoft. Why is this different?
So, here is a question, since it is literally trivial to own the hardware AND the source code running on the hardware, how can "these left wing companies" stop anyone from making the "art" they want?
Every single time you open your mouth, you just demonstrate that you know almost literally nothing about the subject. You just vomit irrational hatred and spew insults. It is kind of tiring.
Well, now it is your chance to call me a gay troll faggot or whatever. Go to.
Did it look like an existing picture? Or was it a duplicate of an existing picture?
Because the first one has every individual pixel being different from the source. The second one is a reproduction, which is clearly covered by copyright law.
I will bet a significant sum it was the first one.
Next you will request a picture of Ronald McDonald and then be surprised that the Neural Network draws a trademarked clown?
This sets precedent. Either the parliament will address it and change the act to recognize the limits imposed by the court (unlikely) or this precedent will be used in other cases to apply this legal reasoning to other similar situations.
Both of those will take years. Probably more than one election cycle.
Guy, they don't even acknowledge that aboriginal rape and domestic violence is at the highest rates in Australia.
If they don't admit to the current rape and abuse, why would they admit the historical aboriginal infanticide, infant cannibalism, slaughter and cannibalism of old women, underage "arranged" "marriages", hunting and cannibalism of competing tribes and so much more.
The event organizers are required to find anointed members of the local tribe and pay them shit-tins of money to perform the humiliation ritual for them.
There is an ongoing theme underneath every one of these "Welcome to Country" ceremonies is that the "First Nations" people never gave up sovereignty, and that it follows that they should be able to grant citizenship in parallel to the nation of Australia.
This is a literal plan by the Australian Socialist Alliance; and their useful idiots within the aboriginal community are happy to go along because they attention, money, and privileges at every step.
You keep saying things that show you don't really understand what is happening.
You keep saying that, yet you don't give any indication of why you think that I am wrong.
Having coauthored a 4th year Software Engineering dissertation in which we compiled and trained a Convolutional Neural Network, I am fairly confident of my understanding of the subject. If I am wrong and there are no neurons or no complex interactions, I'd love to know. Please, I welcome your detailed critique.
That's a disingenuous reduction of the argument I posed to you.
What did you say? Oh, it is right here!
This thing can only copy.
The essence of your argument is: Neural Networks can only copy and not create anything original. It follows that what they do is an infringement of copyright, because you can recognize the style that is being aped.
I think my summation of your argument is succinct.
You know guy, for all your butthurt and bluster you have yet to provide any countervailing facts. You have done a bunch of quibbling over definitions, to your own benefit, but you haven't actually presented any alternatives beyond "I said so".
Now you've devolved to insults.
I guess we both know that your position isn't actually based on reason, huh?
Have a great day.
I'm going to take a moment to recommend Starsector. It is a fantastically polished 2D space exploration, combat, and trading game.
It has been one of my best purchases of the last five years. Great mod support, very, very repayable. It has many viable strategies and encourages you to try different play styles. Have a look, it might be your cup of tea.
This is more or less the journey of Thor (Jason Thor Hall), founder of Pirate Software.
He worked for Blizzard, then Amazon Games, then the government as a counter intrusion specialist. Now he has founded Pirate Software and is pretty frank about it.
Heartbound, his game, is pretty good? I haven't played it yet.
Guy, when you enter a prompt into a Convolutional Neural Network, you can't point to the work that it is coping; because it isn't copying a single work, or even a couple. The NN is relying on the complex interactions of neurons to identify patterns within its output and to adjust those to make them better match a gestalt of that training.
You know this. You tried to correct my original response to point this out to me.
When you duplicate an image with a Xerox machine, or even a person visually copying an artwork by looking at it, you can point to the piece being copied. "There it is, that is the original."
Duplication is prohibited under copywrite law; but style isn't. Drawing Spongebob Squarepants in the style of Vincent Van Gough is a creative, transformational work even if you can recognize both the character and the style.
There may be issues about selling or distributing that work, because Spongebob is covered by trademark etc., but there is no question about the transformative and artistic nature of the piece. Juxtaposing the vapid childrens' character and one of the most famous Dutch painters is, in itself, an artistic statement.
From https://www.clrn.org/can-you-copyright-an-art-style/
Direct Answer: Can You Copyright an Art Style?
No, you cannot copyright an art style. While you can copyright specific, original works of art, such as paintings, drawings, or sculptures, copyright law does not protect styles or general ideas.
I get that you fucking hate Neural Network generated art. I understand, but you are just making shit up to win arguments. You are demonstrably wrong, which is worse because you know you are wrong, and you don't give a fuck.
Every day we make fun of Neo-Marxist fuckheads for making up their own facts, and here you are doing it to win an internet slap fight.
Even if you manage to declare victory by utterly distorting terms (a leftist tactic) you will have convinced no one of your point of view.
There are really, really good reasons to distrust Convolutional Neural Networks and Large Language Models. I've given a few very good ones in other posts in this topic. "lol; they are just Xerox machines!' isn't one.
Oh, and BTW, I've never given a 30 year prediction. That was someone else.
Legal wages for a twelve year old are about $8 an hour around here. She was paid for about two and a half hours of her time, which is about what I estimate she spent.
But thanks for implying that I am a exploitive jerk.
Anyone else would call this copying with a little bit of randomness added in.
Yeah, so we are having an issue of semantics here. We are using different meanings of the word copy. Further, I think you know what the actual definition is, and you are arguing in bad faith.
If a human artist looks at a drawing or an image, then makes a copy of it by hand, it is substantially different. This can be sold as original art under a couple conditions. I won't get into the conditions here, because I don't think they matter and you don't care.
If the artwork is different enough that it won't be confused for commercial purposes, it doesn't infringe on copyright.
Moreover, there are things that can not be covered by copyright. These include styles and formats. There has been a Chinese version of the Australian show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." Which in turn is a copy of the CBS show "The $64,000 Question" from 1955, because you can't copyright show formats.
You also can't copyright procedures, rules or recipes. You also can't copyright an artistic school or style.
So, you are conflating the term "duplicate" with the term "copy". Duplicates are covered by copyright, as they are an exact reproduction of an artistic work.
A rabbi crawling out of a drain grate in the style of Studio Ghibli absolutely is not.
To take a photographic image and then redraw that into a new picture in an entirely different style is not a copy. It certainly isn't a duplicate.
To combine two images into a fusion of artistic representations into an image that has never existed before is not a copy.
Have it draw something that has never been classified before.
You are correct. A convolutional neural network will not be able to generate images that match criteria outside its training data set.
But you can't speak Chinese without every having learned it. So what? What does that have to do with anything at all?
Your major complaint seems to be that Convolutional Neural Networks are not, in fact, people. You got me! They have less neurons than a flatworm. They are certainly less complex than the nervous system of a garden slug. They get things wrong and draw stupid shit all the time.
That doesn't mean they are a Xerox machine. They have a different function and are really good at certain tasks, especially of classification. They are very scalable. They are not thinking machines in any sense of the word "thinking".
Eh. I paid a local twelve year old twenty bucks for original character art for a TTRPG.
It was the daughter of a friend. She spends all her free time drawing anyway. She got paid to practice her art. It was win/win.
It was not museum quality, but it was $20 worth.
Except when it's a literal copy of something that previously existed.
It isn't a copy. That isn't how that works. Deep Learning Neural Networks don't contain a library of images.
They are trained with a library of images, which is then taken away.
Convolutional Neural Networks play the Hot and Cold game for head-pats.
The training environment gives the Neural Network a prompt. For example "Draw a squid."
The NN does its best to draw a squid. The result is compared to one of the training images from the library of squid images. The NN is awarded head-pats accordingly.
This repeats thousands or millions of times.
A well trained AI can do things like drawing a well known character as though they were a squid which will combine their ability to satisfy both sets of criteria at the same time.
Like it or not, that image has never been created before.
Rewriting history is truly the real peril.
These days teachers prepare their lessons using AI tools. Students cheat, and hand in homework generated by AI tools. Then Teachers use AI tools to assist in their marking and detect the use of AI tools.
We wrote prose and essays in high school so we could learn the skills of being able to read, apply critical analysis and then write well crafted and coherently on the subject.
Now we can have AI voices read it to us, then fat finger a prompt to have a large language model write about it.
AI is just about at genius level for rationalization. If you give it a set of absolute facts, it will craft everything it produces around those fixed points. Those immutable assumptions can be anything: George Washington was a proud black man; Austin Texas is the greatest city on earth. Islam was right about women.
Students outsourcing the labor of learning facts and skills will catch on faster than viral Tic Tock videos. We will be raising a generation of drooling morons that believe anything their phone tells them. History will be whatever our silicon valley overlords say it should be.
This is truly a Pandora's box.
Fund a civil suit.
Spin off Quebec as it's own country, as it is a political headache and a massive nett loss.
The USA can invade Quebec and finally put those damn French separatist in their place.