What NFTs (and crypto in general) do is very different from a web of trust style approach

Crypto creates one source of absolute truth, the Blockchain, costly computed via consensus.

Web of trust, on the other hand, requires you to declare which accounts you trust. Via public-private key signing, you can always verify that a post is actually made by a specific person, and if you trust that person (e.g. because you’ve met them before and exchanged keys), you know it’s legit. You can then extend that system by also trusting accounts your trusted accounts verified, etc

It is! It says so in the trailer

At the moment it feels like the proverb about gold rushs and shovels

God, can we just move on to RISC-V already

slams

It’s static, yes, but the static price is orders of magnitude higher. It still involves loading the whole model into VRAM and performing matrix multiplication on trillions of numbers

Just played it for a couple of hours, and it’s sooo good

The music is amazing, and it has a lot more story than Hades 1, what I’ve seen so far looks really promising for what’s to come

So many small things are so well done as well, for example how reactive the voice lines are in boss fights

god, I hate capitalism

Aww, the broken comments were my favorite feature

I (unrelatedly) finally started playing new Vegas just a few days ago. Is the show any good?

No problem! Interpretations of quantum mechanics are also still very much under discussion, and Bell’s inequality only says that there are no local hidden variables. While QM very accurately describes observations so far, it’s by no means solved, and there’s a good chance that a new theory will upend much of it in the future

He proved it mathematically, but it was only recently confirmed experimentally

it’s a matter of interpretation, but generally the consensus is that quantum measurements are truly probabilistic (random), Bell proved that there can’t be any hidden variables that influence the outcome

We do have a pretty strong el Niño exacerbating the effects, but yes, generally it seems something has tipped and the heating is accelerating. The last 5 years have been pretty brutal, and they are only the first appetizer of what’s to come

omg Franzia haii :3

with how easy it is to run these models by now, the technology is certainly here to stay, and people will need to adapt, for sure. It only really makes sense to discuss AI in the broader context of capitalism, imo

Undercutting artists’ livelihoods is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed. I honestly don’t think UBI is going far enough, as it’s just a bandaid on the festering tumor of capitalism (but that’s a discussion for another day). But can’t the same be said about numerous other fields? AI can perform many tasks throughout all fields of work. At the moment it is still worse than an expert in most of these, but it’s a matter of when, not if, it surpasses that. Engineers, programmers, journalists, accountants, I can’t think of any job that is not en route to be streamlined or automated by AI, reducing need for humans and putting people out of work.

Artists have it worse in the sense that they are often self employed, which makes them more vulnerable to exploitation and poverty. But isn’t the problem much larger than that?

This whole debate somewhat reminds me of the swing riots. They were often portrait as anti-technology or backwards, when in actuality the reason for the revolts wasn’t that machines existed, but that they were used to undercut and exploit workers.

I’m not trying to argue that any of what’s happening now is good, just to clarify again. The current “AI revolution” is rotten through and though. But AI is (for now, the consciousness question is super interesting, but not all that relevant at the moment) just a tool. It irks me that so much righteous anger is projected at AI, instead of the people using it to exploit people and maximize their profits, and the system that gives them the power to do so. Capitalists don’t care if it’s an AI, sweatshop workers overseas or exploited workers competing for jobs domestically. They’ll go with that earns them more money. We should be angry at the cause, not the symptoms.

I have an honest question and would like to hear your (and others, of course) opinion:

I get the anger at the models that exist today. DallE, Midjourney and others were trained on millions of images scraped without consent. That itself is legally ambiguous, and will be interesting how courts rule on it (who am I kidding, they’ll go with the corporations). More importantly though, some of it (and increasingly more, as the controversy reached mainstream) was explicitly disallowed by the author to be used as training data. While I don’t think stealing is the right term here, it is without question unethical and should not be tolerated. While I don’t feel as strongly about this as many others do, maybe because I’m not reliant on earning money from my art, I fully agree that this is scummy and should be outlawed.

What I don’t understand is how many people condemn all of generative AI. For me the issue seems to be one of consent and compensation, and ultimately of capitalism.

Would you be okay with generative AI whose training data was vetted to be acquired consentually?

⬆️ this poster didn’t normalize their linear combination of wave functions

who’s gonna tell her