This is fairly hilarious.
When Australian settlers were making inroads into the Victorian goldfields, there were local Aboriginal tribes that used to hunt and eat travelers on the long, shitty dirt roads.
They, however, much preferred to kill and eat the Chinese immigrant miners, because Europeans men reportedly, tasted too much of the tobacco and salt beef they consumed.
https://www.larryhannigan.com.au/australia/02e-aboriginal-cannibalism-infanticide/
Grummz has lost so much credibility with this sorry affair.
Yeah, but both of them are about half way to red pilled. Both of them give promotion to Mauler, who is pretty based.
If you have other suggestions, I'd like to hear them, but so far both Drinker and Nerdrotic both have brought a lot of normie attention to the destruction of major franchises. Nerdrotic has been savage about what is happening to Dr Who and Rings of Power. I am sure Bad Robot has lost a lot of influence due to their efforts.
It is more than just a bonding ritual, it is a test.
Do your feelings matter more than results? Can you take criticism? Are you brave and forthright enough to speak your mind when it is unpleasant? Do you go running for mom to tell tales when your feelings get hurt? How do you act under pressure? Are you able to forgive and move on when hot heads prevail?
These are all really, really useful things to know if a team is doing anything stressful and dangerous. Like felling trees, building roofing or fighting as a squad.
A man who has a big cry the first time someone hurts their feelings is absolutely going to fall apart when your squad is being shot at.
It can be both.
There are important distinctions.
The CIA used local military factions as a cats-paw to overthrow the democratically elected government.
So, yes, but no. If it was outright US direct action that toppled the government, then Russia would retaliate up to and including a nuclear strike; As that would be a direct, existential attack on Russia by the USA.
My log cabin runs OpenBSD.
This shit is literally what the Inquisition is for. To prevent popular reform of the religious doctrine.
Heretics: "We have talked about it. It makes us feel good if Jesus was a gay, purple space alien. So we are going to do that now."
Inquisition: "Ahem."
Okay. So what?
Your objection is that the NN was trained with a small pool of images for sleeping people? Or that the NN doesn't know what a person skipping rope looks like?
You realize that this is an issue of the training data set. You said so. I infer that you know that with a bigger training set that the objections you are raising would be minimized. It would be trivial to train a NN to show more than two hundred sleeping poses. The hardest part would be to assemble a high quality set of training data.
A mathematical model of nerve cells creates art on demand, as per the training it is given, and that isn't transformative enough for you, because the results closely match the given examples.
You are entitled to your opinion. You are clearly wrong, but you can be as wrong as you like.
I mean, you are not considering the process, only the product. You appear see an image generated by a Neural Network no different from a photocopy. You seem think the law should treat the two the same way.
Good luck with that.
Firstly, you have misread my post, which is surprising because you quoted the relevant passage in your replies.
Go back and read the post again.
My use of the word "profound" is in reference to the tools required to make the internal code of a Neural Network readable to humans.
You seem to think that there is a complete, unaltered copy of an image stored somewhere within the neural network. This just isn't true.
Information is stored inside a neural network as a matrix of weighted probabilities arranged into neurons. Each affects adjacent, connected neurons. The neural network is responding to the image on the pixel level. The response of individual neurons is one of activation intensity, and by themselves they don't do much. Together they are really good at recognizing or creating patterns.
You can't print out the code and look at the images. You can't even reconstruct the images used in training from that code, not with any tools no matter how profoundly they interpret the data. The training data set just isn't there. What you are proposing would be roughly equivalent of looking at slices of a human brain and seeing a story of the person's fifteenth birthday party. Yes, the person with that brain can write stories and accounts of their memorable party. No, you can't see the story by analysis of the brain tissue. The story isn't in the cells.
A weighted neuron probability matrix is not a copy of image, nor does it contain an image in any meaningful sense. Yes, it can produce images in a particular, specific style of art. That isn't the same thing.
Training the Neural Network doesn't even happen the way that you seem think it does. The image isn't fed into the neural network. Instead the neural network produces an image, and then that product is compared to an image from the set of training data. The training framework is playing the "Hotter / Colder" game with the neural network. FIRST the NN creates something. THEN the training framework responds. "Colder. Try again. Colder. Try again. Warmer. Try again. Hot. Getting hot!" This repeats literally thousands or millions of times in an automated process.
Your ignorance of the subject is clearly very profound, and you have devolved to arguing a semantic issue, based on you misreading my post, then declared a technical victory entirely on semantics.
The law does not support your distinction, nor does any competent analysis of Deep Learning Neural Networks.
Have a nice day.
Just to be clear that I understand the point that you are making.
You are saying that transforming a series of images into a very abstract probability weighted neural network matrix that can not be read by humans is, in fact, unaltered, untransformed art?
The process:
A bunch of art ---> Unreadable probability code ---> A new image that is different from the source material
Yet there is no transformation?
Is this a correct interpretation of your argument?
Whoosh.
You can't look at the coded guts of a Convolutional Neural Network and tell me which artist was used to train the AI.
Nor can you look at that code and tell me what image it will produce.
The only thing you can do is wait until the black box spits out art in a style and then guess.
FYI artistic style is not covered by copyright. Specific drawings or paintings can be covered by copyright, but not a style.
Since the Neural Network code looks nothing like art, you would have to be a drooling smooth brain to say that the art was not transformed.
As for sources: So what? When you bought that poster did you sign a contract that said you would not use it to train a NN? What law was broken? Who was harmed?
So judges get shot and then the killer pardoned. Then the president can pardon himself for his involvement.
Problem solved
How do you figure? The constitution doesn't put any qualifications on pardons except excluding impeachment offenses.
Because the pardon, by context an implication, is the President's power to grant clemency. That is to mitigate punishment for convictions.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-1/ALDE_00013316/
It is not immunity from prosecution for everything. How can clemency and reduction of sentencing be granted for crimes that have yet to be discovered?
In Ex parte Grossman the Supreme Court considered impeachment to be a remedy for abuse of the pardon power. Some of Biden's pardons to his famiy, which are coconspirators) were signed literally fifteen minutes before Trump was sworn in. Obviously in this case impeachment is not possible as a remedy. That alone should be enough for the Supreme Court to revisit the issue.
As to why Trump might grant a vast number of people Immunity from investigation and prosecution? To force the Supreme Court to give deep analysis and consideration to the constitutional powers granted to pardon. It would be an ultimate troll move. According to the Dems, it would be a lawful use of his powers.
Those will get slapped down. A pardon requires conviction for specific crimes.
If they don't throw out these blank check pardons then the Dems risk Trump giving blan check pardons to everyone in the Chicago phone book, or everyone on the voter roles in North Carolina.
It would be exactly as valid.
You can't draw a legal distinction between buying a DVD to watch and buying a DVD to show the images to your Neural Network.
If someone made their images available on the web, then they don't get to pick and choose who gets to see them. Besides, it can not be enforced. In fact, there is no real, legal distinction between viewing a digital image and copying a digital image. The very process of putting the image on a screen requires a copy be made into the memory of a computer, and probably onto the hard drive swapfile cache.
Are you going to argue that it should be illegal to subject a web image to intensive algorithmically driven analysis? JPG compression does that.
The distinction, in law, has always been: "Did they sell a copy of that image?" With neural network training, the answer is clearly: 'No'
Your legal arguments amount to not liking Deep Learning Neural Networks, and then, post hoc, making a special case for them.
Well, sorry buddy, that isn't what the law says. If you want to argue we should just ban NNs, then make that case. BUT as it stands, there is no tort to apply. I don't even think that you can show that harm has been done.
"But he trained his Neural Network to produce images in the style of Picasso!"
So fucking what? The value of AI images in the style of Picasso is roughly zero. The value of real Picasso paintings remains unaffected.
"As a working artist I now have to compete with Neural art!"
And musicians have to compete with Spotify. CDs had to compete with iTunes. Movie Theaters had to compete with Netflix. Show me the direct, specific harm and then we can discuss what torts to apply.
Now do season two of Westworld.
Well, as the saying goes: If you can't be the best figure skater, then have your boyfriend break the other girl's knees.
More seriously though, one of the major differences between men and women is that men can compete hard then forgive each other and become friends again. Women can't switch their emotions up. When they get competitive, mostly they get nasty.
There was a study on shows of affection to the other team after the game concluded. Women are perfunctory and performative, while men are much more genuine.
It is an insane idea that it isn't transformative for art to interpreted by an abstract statistical model.
In every art museum worthy of the name, there are students sitting in front of the work of a great master trying to draw a copy with a sketch pad and pencils. I don't see the museum trying to charge them $100 for every drawing they ever make from then onward.
People can't even look at the files to determine what sources have influenced the work. It is utterly unreadable by humans without profound, transformative interpretation by tools. Yet when this mysterious black box spits out finished work, a literature wonk declares: "That is in the style of Hemmingway! You must have trained your model on Hemmingway!"
Remember, there is a substantial faction of the Left (and almost all artists are left leaning) that declares that there is No Truth but Power. This is a test of their power to establish the reality of our world.
Lets see them enforce it.
As if you could afford any cartridges for it. What do 5.7×28mm cartridges cost now? Are they up to $4 each?
All they have to do is slow you down for another two election cycles, and then the process will be utterly irreversible.
After London is taken the rest of the UK is irrelevant. Once the percentage of Muslims gets high enough, they will start a pogrom. There are no Christians left in Iraq.
In South Africa they killed people with sharpened bicycle spokes. They are made of carbon steel. A well placed puncture wound is impossible to treat or stop bleeding without surgery and cauterization.
People have been killed with hat pins. A well wielded cosh, cudgel or even walking stick is lethal in the right hands.
A $1 steak knife is much more likely to be used in a murder than a $200 collectible knife.
This is security theatre and a (very) thinly veiled pretext for tracking and control.
Seriously, the breadth and depth of the faggotry over at slashdot makes our humble faggot jannie Dom look like an choir boy.
The Arabs castrated every single slave.
In hindsight it sure solved a lot of problems for them.
I worked at a hospital here in Oz. I've been involved in two infanticide investigations. It kind of fucked me up, and I didn't even see the bodies.
The cops don't even write reports. No one knows what to do with the information. It won't ever see a day in court or a line in the newspaper.
You just have no idea as to how fucking worthless their "native culture" is. Australian Aboriginals literally killed and ate more than 1/3 of their babies before European contact. They haven't changed very much.
Working with the natives every working day for ten years has utterly changed my view on so many things.
https://www.larryhannigan.com.au/australia/02e-aboriginal-cannibalism-infanticide/