Damn, the density of bad faith in that single sentence might collapse into some sort of fallacy black hole.

Congrats

TL; DR;

• Using bad analogies to explain things that are already confusing helps no-one
• AI is currently a marketing term used to push LLM’s
• Tools used appropriately garner satisfactory results.

people need to specify that they’re against generative LLMs, like Chat-bots or slop-generators, not “all AI”.

I agree, how does throwing out bad comparisons relate to that ?

There was just a thread on Twitter where a company showcased an amazing tool for animators - where you, for example, prepare your walking/sitting/standing animations, but then instead of motion-capturing or manually setting the scene up, you just define two keyframes - the starting and the ending position of the character… and then their AI picks the appropriate animations, merges between them and animates the character walking from one position to the other.

It’s a phenomenal tool for creatives, but because the term “AI” appeared, the company got shat on by random people.

if you are talking about cascadeur or something similar, that doesn’t use an LLM afaict, it’s based on ML Trained on their own internal data (or so they say).

I don’t disagree that tools used in a way that plays to their strength are useful.

People are often conflating AI with LLM’s, which makes sense for the average person, because that’s how it’s been marketed and sold.

LLM’s aren’t even really AI but here we are.

No. All generative graphical slop AIs and generic chat-bot LLMs have been trained on large corpus of data that has been obtained by various sketchy and illegitimate means.

I was very specific in my wording, but as i said, i could be wrong, if you can point to any big commercial LLM’s that don’t adhere to my classification i will concede the point.

THAT’S the major difference.

I mean, yes, that’s what i said.

So i stand my my conclusion that in the context you laid out, Photoshop isn’t a good comparison to most, if not all of the current tools that would be considered AI.

So, he basically says something that directly contradicts what you’re saying - he prefers the generative slop machines, than tools that actually help developers or artists.

I could be wrong but half of that statement was sarcasm.

I basically read it as:

So I’m gonna execute the code of someone who doesn’t know the first thing about coding on my computer? Great! I’d rather have AI art and human code.

Running code someone vibed up without understanding what it’s doing, it stupid If i had to pick one way around or the other, I’d rather have AI art(which is this case is significantly less of a security risk) and human code (which should potentially be of a higher quality)

I think the fundamental misunderstanding here is how the term AI is used.

None of these things are really intelligent and LLM’s are predictive semi-hallucination machines cobbling together best guesses at what’s supposed to come next in the sequence.

The way i personally see it is that the latest gen “AI” stuff is basically sitting on LLM’s in some capacity. Area recognition, language, image/code generation etc.

Anything else is just normal(perhaps smart) tools, using algorithms of some kind, ML etc

Weak comparisons help no-one, photoshop is nothing like LLM’s

All of the big commercial LLM’s (without exception afaik) have been trained on a large corpus of data that has been obtained by various sketchy and illegitimate means. (some legitimate as well).

That’s the major difference between the two.

If you are using a model that has only been trained on legally obtained data, disregard this point.

I’m not even against competent tool use of LLM’s but please use better arguments.

I detailed my thoughts and arguments, feel free to address those directly.

if you want to ignore most of the reply to argue against a stance i wasn’t taking there’s not much of a conversation to be had here.

I’d assume the argument is the same kind of one made for sanctions, you restrict the interaction with the country to indicate you are displeased with some action(s) that government has taken.

It’s not a good argument , mind you.

The alternative is to stop doing business in places where laws are being used to restrict the games available.

Don’t get me wrong, fuck the russian government and the horse they rode in on, but unless you have a defend-able reason that russia should be singled out in this context your argument is emotional rhetoric and little else.

You could perhaps narrow that down to a subset of applicable laws, but i’d lay good money that any group/type of laws you pick are not go only contain russia and still be able to be considered a reasonable argument.

Not a defense, but aren’t a lot of the steam games at least runnable without the front end?

Not as much as GOG obviously, but some ?

Pointing out potential hypocrisy isn’t homophobic, that you think it is, says a lot more about you than them.

You have to be doing it on purpose at this point, nobody accidentally misses the context with that amount of pinpoint accuracy.

You’re even including partial sentences and specifically leaving out the part that gives the context.

OK so I’ll do this one line by line and then you’re on your own.

There is no change of context. Comment thread OP stated that vegetarianism is a luxury of modern times, something patently counterfactual.

The whole line was

Veganism is a luxury of modern times and certain social economic circles.

As for “patently counterfactual” that’s a strong phrase for zero supporting arguments.

She specifically mentions supply chain issues such as the local availability of produce and economic concerns over the cost of meat vs. vegetables.

Yes, as a supporting argument that the current conditions mean that it’s not universally economically viable to subsist on vegetables.

We have been talking about supply, demand, and economic feasibility this whole time.

It was mentioned yes, but in the context of current conditions.

I’ll simplify for you.

As things currently are it is not always economically viable to subsist on vegetables alone.

There was no argument that it isn’t possible for the world to get to a point where this is possible, just that it’s not the current world.

Do you know what the word is for an item that is possible to obtain with an expenditure of wealth, while a less costly viable alternative exists?

There is no world in which a person’s daily intake of protein is cheaper to produce in meat than in grains and legumes. That it is cheaper to purchase is what OP is commenting on and I am decrying as unsustainable.

No, they describe many reasons aside from just the purchase price, if you haven’t seen them i suggest you back and re-read the post, it’s like 3 small paragraphs.

In case you are still struggling. I’ll bullet point them for you.

• Purchase price
• Availability
• Quality
• Accessibility
• Opportunity/Prep Time Cost

Overall your replies imply a lack of ability to empathize with another persons circumstances and not a small amount of (let them eat cake) entitlement.

it’s great that you are in a financial situation, physical location and with enough free time to make vegetarianism viable.

Declaring that it’s not possible to be in a situation worse than the one you are in, especially when realistic potential reasons for the differences are offered, is tone-deaf and frankly disgusting.

I’m done with this, if you can’t figure it out from the above that’s a you problem, and i suppose anyone who has to deal with you on a regular basis.

If you want to change conversations then indicate that that is what’s happening , because the post you are replying to clearly stated the context in which that statement was made.

If you want to reply to that statement in an entirely different context and then don’t mention that that is happening you’re going to get confusion.

Vegetarianism is a luxury

Yes it is, sometimes, based on the criteria in the post you are replying to.

They even give examples of why this is and point out not everyone has the same circumstances you , but you still somehow read it as your own personal position being the only correct one.

To be clear, that’s vegetarianism, not vegetables.

Access and “cost effectiveness to nutrition ratios” are skewed towards meat in some places, especially when looked at from a socio-economic point of view.

Per calorie, meat or “meat” can be cheaper, especially when you factor in time/effort taken for purchase, storage, prep and cooking.

That’s almost certainly because of the focus on meat production in some countries and you could argue that it shouldn’t be that way, but that’s a different conversation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_processing_disorder

edit: damn, that’s a high percentage of sodium for pointing at a thing that provably exists in the modlog.

worth checking the modlog, seems there were answers that have since disappeared for mysterious reasons.

Is that relevant somehow?

Is this situation relevant to that example? Are the people in question changed since the time in which the accusations were made?

Rebranding personal ethics and morals as “a purity test” is disingenuous at best.

If you’re going to take umbridge with someone’s approach at least do it directly instead of this backhanded high horse bullshit.

They aren’t mutually exclusive concepts, both can be true.

The point was that guarding ideas didn’t start with formalised copyright.

Sure, but that’s not the only way people have guarded ideas.

Secret societies, artisan guilds that only taught it’s members and on occasion killed people who find out their secrets, professions taught only to the direct student.

Just because the formal idea of something was recorded doesn’t mean it wasnt around before.

As people we are constantly hoarding knowledge and ideas to benefit is individually or as a tribe.

What do you mean by “most of our history” , like in a timeframe sense ?