Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)D

daniskarma

@ daniskarma @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts
3
Comments
945
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • I'm not mad. I will just not allow anyone to reduce my living standards because they don't want to use a rubber.

    A export model is not bad. I just said that's unreasonable to think that all the world could follow that model. Because then "who would we export to?". It's like liberals thinking that the tax rate in a tax heaven are proof that every country could have those tax haven rates. Good for them, that the model worked, but for some country to export other country needs to import, that's all. Chinese economic growth have been very linked to being the world factory. That's great, but it could not be assumed that all the world could just do the same.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Reading the study I get the following remarks:

    Living space, not great. 60m2 for a 4 person family. That's tight. I live alone in a 90m2 house and I could use more space, do they want me to live in a 15m2 house or do they want to force to share living space? Sorry but I won't compromise there. I prefer people having less children that me having to live as ants in a colony.

    That is just a personal pick with the DLS minimum requirements chosen.

    But still forgetting that. The reasoning is extremely faulty. Most of their argumentation heavy lifting is just relied to Millward-Hopkins (2022) paper establishing that 14.7 GJ per person anually is enough. That paper is just a work of fantasy. For reference, and taking the same paper numbers. Current energy usage (with all the exiting poverty) is 80 GJ/cap. Paleolitic use of energy was 5 GJ. Author is proposing that we could live ok with just triple paleolitic energy. That paper just oversees a lot of what people need to live in a function society to get completely irrational numbers on what energy cap we could assume to produce a good life.

    Then on materials used. The paper assumes all the world shifting to vegetarian diet, everyone living on multiresidential buildings, somehow wood as the main building material (I don't know how they even reconcile that with multiresidential buildings...). And half of cars usage shifting to public transport How to achieve this in rural areas it's not mentioned at all).

    A big notice needs to be done that both papers what are actually doing is basically taking China economy (greatly praised in the introduction) and assuming that all the world should live like that. And yes, probably the world could have 30 billion inhabitants if we accept to be all like China, who would we export to achieve that economic model if we all have a export based economy? who knows, probably the martians. And even then, while a lot of "ticks" on what a decent level of life quality apparently seems to be ticked, many people in western countries would not consider that quality life, but a very restrictive and deprived life standard.

    I'm still on the boat the people having less children is a better approach to great lives without destroying the planet. At some point a cap on world population need to be made, it really add that much that the cap is 30 billion instead of maybe 5 billion? It's certainly not a cap in the number of social iterations a person can have, but numbers give for plenty of friends. And at the end it's not even a cap on "how many children" can people have, as once the cap is reach the number of children will be needed to cap the same to achieve stability. It's just a cap on "when people can still be having lots of kids". Boomer approach to "let's have children now" and expect that my kids won't want to have as many children as I have now.

    Also another big pick I have with the article is that it blames the current level of inefficiency to private jets, suvs, and industrial meat. But instead of making the rational approach of taking thise appart from the current economy and calculate what the results will be. Parts from zero building the requirements out of their list. Making the previous complaint about those luxury items out of place completely. On a personal note I would reduce or completely eliminate many of those listed "super luxury" items. But I have the feel (just a feel because neither me not the author have studied this) that the results of global energy and material usage won't drop that much, certainly not at the levels proposed by the authors with their approach.

  • ha… wait, yes! Haha!

    Jump

  • Disengage

  • ha… wait, yes! Haha!

    Jump

  • Not it's not. All the artists I follow keep doing art as usual.

    Same as I said other user. If that's your concern, live by it. If in X number or years other forms of art keep existing and AI have not taken over everything promise yourself that you will change your mind and admit that your were wrong. Think about the people that told you that was going to happen and stop trusting them.

    I have promised myself that if in 5-10 hears AI have taken over art and all traditional art is dead and all art is bad I would do the same.

    Because learning from our mistakes is the only way to move forward.

    Here you are making a big assumption "AI will take over". Just promise yourself that that assumption being correct or incorrect will have moral consequences for your future self.

    I say this because I'm very certain that that prediction will not occur. But sadly people who made that prediction and bullied all over the place anyone liking AI will keep being the same once proven wrong.

    Tell me. In which year I will be unable to read a book written by a person, read a comic made with digital painting, look at a oil handmade painting or look at a composite photography?

  • ha… wait, yes! Haha!

    Jump

  • You are trying to analyze a joke my dude. Refer to the other, more serious, comment you replied a few minutes ago if you want real conversation.

  • ha… wait, yes! Haha!

    Jump

  • Human input is still needed. As far as I know there's not a skynet level AI doing things by itself.

    Human interaction is indispensable in AI creation. And it can be far more involved that other forms of art. A person can take more time and effort producing an AI image than in making something quickly in Photoshop/Gimp.

    Speed argument is invalidated by photography which can produce images faster than AI so... A photography can be taken in fractions of a second, AI usually takes more time. The difference on time between a oil portrait and a photography is far greater than whatever we have now with AI, and people still have hand made portraits. I have one of myself.

    Anyway, I suppose you are subduing your opinion to that prediction. Then I just hope that if the prediction proves false, and if in the future AI have not destroyed other forms of art then your opinion will change and you will recognize you were wrong. I obviously accept the same proposal if in the future AI art have destroyed other forms of art then I'll had to admit I was wrong.

  • YouTube

    Jump

  • The way some websites just guess your language via IP geolocation infuriates me.

  • It really does

    Jump

  • I wish I could go to bed early. But noisy neighbours make it impossible.

    I basically need them to go to sleep before I can go to sleep.

  • ha… wait, yes! Haha!

    Jump

  • Photography didn't replace painted art.

    Digital art didn't replace traditional art.

    3d art didn't replace hand drawn art.

    Why is AI going to replace anything?

    I think that idea is based on a proposition "AI generated images will replace all other type of images" which is not true.

    It's just another tool that will be used among others, some people will use it, some people won't, some people will use as a mixed media utility.

    The existence of one thing doesn't invalidate or harm the existence of another. As in many aspects of life most things can coexist together.

    I visit some image boards which are media neutral, this meaning they don't discriminate by media. Most art there used to be digital painted or 3d, and now there is AI art but it hasn't replaced anything. Digital and 3d art are posted at the same rate, now there is just more art in the form of AI generated art. It didn't replace the other artists, it just added to them. Now there's more content for people to enjoy, everyone wins.

  • ha… wait, yes! Haha!

    Jump

  • Plenty of artists stole other people's art. Entire genres are based on that. And one can even argue that all art is derivative and that truly original art do no exist.

    It's not just prompts there are hundreds or thousands of different variables, several programs you can join in different positions, you can make it complex to inimaginable level, to writing your own programs to do part of the task, or making your own Lora with your art or training a lors with other people's art to achieve the result you want, it can get infinitely complex. You not liking or thinking is boring is irrelevant. Is complex enough and you can achieve specific results. It take time and expertise to do it right, as any other technique. And at the end it gives you enough freedom to be able to use it to express yourself which, in my book, is the definition of art.

    You don't need to explain art to me. I've been doing artistic work as amateur for several decades now, I can more or less paint, write and play some instruments, I have a few short stories with a few thousands readers, it's nothing, but I know what the creative process is. And I've studied several courses of art history in university. I'm quite knowledge on the topic. I know about AI art because I find it extremely interesting and I've played quite a lot with it. But to be true most of the artistic things I still do are all manual, because I like it better, and because I get better results doing it like that. But I've seen other people getting very good results with AI tools.

    Go search renaissance or baroque Churches and then come back and tell me that "copying other people's work is not art". Art being so different artist to artist is a relative recent thing, for most history all artists in a period just keep copying each other blatantly. I remember doing an exam where we had two pictures of two nearly identical renaissance churches and had to be able to differentiate the architects, and it was HARD. Those fuckers didn't need AI to copy each other's styles to the last stone. And nowadays are still studied as grand masters of their art.

  • ha… wait, yes! Haha!

    Jump

  • Your definition on what constitutes putting "humanity" into a piece of art is completely arbitrary. Thus I, and any rational being, reject it.

    If a human have a image in his head and put it on any media that's putting "humanity" into art. You can do it with AI, so the debate is closed for me. I've had images in my head that, after a lot of work, I've been able to put into a bitmap. The accuracy in which you can translate the image is a matter of skill as with any art of trade. But it can certainly be done with great accuracy using AI tools.

    So there's no rational argument to say that AI art cannot have "humanity". Unless you start talking about "souls" or something like that.

  • ha… wait, yes! Haha!

    Jump

  • Artists have always gatekeep art.

    It's not even a new trope. It had happened forever.

    The best indicative for something to be a true art is angry artists saying "that's not art".

    Once again, your ignorance on how AI art is made is causing the hate. It's common to hate what we ignore.

    You can communicate love with AI art if you want. You can communicate whatever you want, because you can make the art look whatever you want as good as you can do with any other media.

    That complex workflow is not for shit and giggles. Is the pencil to make the final image be one way or the other. Same as a photographer would control que exposure or the focus. You can chose what's on the picture and what's not. With better accuracy that doing a collage.

    Your premise is based on a limitation of the media that it's not real, thus is a false premise, thus your conclusions are false too.

    I get that the hate for AI is mostly an irrational pseudo religious though. So I do not expect to change anyone's mind. But I will explain things anyway. I have an easy question, is your theory about AI arr falsable? Is there anything that you think could prove you wrong?

  • ha… wait, yes! Haha!

    Jump

  • You are using a computer right now. You should stop using any computer ASAP, don't even use one to reply to this comment.

    Edit: used a computer to click downvote, instead of delivering a hand painted arrow pointing down by mail. That must be -3 IQ points minimum.

  • average c++ dev

    Jump

  • I will botton for my rust compiler, I'm not going to argue with it.

  • ha… wait, yes! Haha!

    Jump

  • I know people who takes hours in comfyUI making a workflow, tweaking aspects, choosing different nodes, adding several layers of different diffusion models.

    You can use an AI generator just by making a prompt "make me a pretty giraffe" same I can take my phone a snap a quick picture. But same as a professional photographer can take hours chosing composition, camera configuration, then tweaking the result.. a person who want to make a good AI image can take hours or days improving and tweaking the workflow.

    For instance, this is a workflow example, a easy one, not even the most complex I've seen:

    That could take a long time to make, because the person had a specific vision on what they want the tool to produce, and can really steer it into producing exactly what they want.

    I think a lot of hate, as always, come mostly from ignorance. Once you know the time and effort that someone can put into this, it's harder to discredit them.

  • ha… wait, yes! Haha!

    Jump

  • Unless AI became sentient and do things by itself, AI art still have humanity behind it. You not liking the tool the human used for making the art does not invalidate the humanity of the person who used that tool.

    If like me going back a couple of centuries and saying that a photograph was not made by a human, but by a soulless machine. And that anyone who enjoys or makes photography is missing their humanity.

    You cannot invalidate someone's humanity. That's against human rights or something.

    You should go face to face with a person who made some image they like and love and put a lot of effort into it using AI tools, and say to them, face to face and looking them in the eyes "I do not consider you a human being".

    Same as people needed to travel and know other cultures to cure racism. The butlerian yihad needs to meet different people to cure something that's quickly turning into bigotry.

  • ha… wait, yes! Haha!

    Jump

  • continuwuity vs tuwunel: where to go from conduwuit? (Update: probably continuwuity.)

    Jump

  • I don't really like synapse, because it performs really bad. But at least it has a stable development. So that's what I use.

    But more and more I'm questioning if matrix is really the federated messaging platform we want. A lot of the drama and development issues of any synapse alternative seem to have their roots in how hard and unsatisfactory is trying to follow the matrix protocol which is subdued to synapse development in a weird form, apparently.

    I still use it. But I'm too tired of the drama, and wondering if there's even a chance for a long term synapse alternative, or if matrix devs are actually doing something that prevents that for ever happening.

  • Securely Expose your Homelab Services with Mutual TLS - YouTube

    Jump

  • Signed by a AC?

    I had a lot of issues with some apps not allowing self-signed certificates and the app used their own list of allowed AC or something, I was unable to make it allow my own certificates even adding my own root certificate to Android.