It's stupid as hell to share any personal information with a company that is interested in spying on you and feeding your data to the nearest advertiser they can find.
Like seriously -- are people using their brains or what?
It's stupid as hell to share any personal information with a company that is interested in spying on you and feeding your data to the nearest advertiser they can find.
Like seriously -- are people using their brains or what?
It's like grub hub but for cats.
(Watch out birds!)
Hey,
No much to add to this myself but it's awesome and you should keep up the good work!
Yeah, I mean... We all hoped it wouldn't have been this way lmao
I actually feel like season 4 was pretty good as a modern rendition. Otherwise, I'm partial to Takeshi Koikes films. There's a new one of those coming out just this week iirc.
Damn, Marshall law is on trump's side now?
What are we doing, folks?
I think this is a good suggestion. As a single user, you could still theme it while also providing cross-posting of other artists you like. Additionally, your network would act as a "web ring" of sorts.
cd .. && ls
!!
!!
!!
!!
Yeah those original 3ds cutscenes haven't aged as well as one would hope lol.
But every time someone gets on their soapbox in the comments it’s like they don’t even know the first thing about the math behind it. Like just figure out what you’re mad about before you start an argument.
The math around it is unimportant, frankly. The issue with AI isn't about GANN networks alone, it's about the licensing of the materials used to train a GANN and whether or not companies that used materials to train a GANN had proper ownership rights. Again, like the post I made, there's an easy argument to make that OpenAI and others never licensed the material they used to train the AI, making the whole model poisoned by copyright theft.
There's plenty of uses of GANNs that are not problematic. Bespoke solution for predicting the outcomes of certain equations or data science uses that involve rough predictions on publically sourced statistics (or privately owned.) The problem is that these are not the same uses that we call "AI" today -- and we're actually sleeping on much better uses of neural networks by focusing on a pie in the sky AGI nonsense being pushed by companies that are simply pushing highly malicious, copyright infringing products to make a quick buck on the stock market.
See, I’m troubled by that one because it sounds good on paper, but in practice that means that Google and Meta, who can certainly build licenses into their EULAs trivially, would become the only government-sanctioned entities who can train AI. Established corpos were actively lobbying for similar measures early on.
As long as people are paying other people, these things will equalize eventually. Ultimately, it would be much more likely that the cost of AI production would become so severe that it would no longer be viable as a business (which, frankly, is fine. There will eventually be enough public domain content that AI will be at the quality it is today with public materials alone.)
I mean, the question war rhetorical. But I don't disagree.