MrNeon

In OpenAI's case their "\n\nAssistant:" equivalent is added server side with no option to prefill the response.

And I wouldn't in a thousand years want to have a quality of life as low as we had back then.

If it at some point they go past looking terrible, will you think these in between "terrible" models were a waste of time?

Why, what am I missing by doing so?

But maybe you have links to others who are able to explain it, not the Bitcoin paper which obviously does not lead one to think network security will subsume all available matter for compute.

Just fucking say it, what's with the running around?

Are you unable to explain it?

From what I've read in several places DALL-E 3 in ChatGPT uses the same seed for every generation which can exacerbate that problem.

I will NOT grant you this. Please, give me actual technical details on WHY it requires ever increasing compute. You've said network security, what about it requires ever increasing compute.

Hard to argue against how popular works that have incredible violence are. Violence is an integral part of the fictional worlds authors build and our stories would be entirely different without it. Of course we want AIs that can engage with those topics.

Your quote says "help with writing" but you couch it as generating "an endless stream". Why would you frame it that way? Come on.

You cannot enforce fines without violence or control of the banks, which you would get through violence.

Most people think their view is morally correct and many think that gives them the right to shove it down other's throats. It doesn't have to come to blows, let people be.

But you will HAVE TO. There is no other way to enforce legislation, threat of violence is necessary. If there is no violence refusal to comply to your legislation follows.

> From your messages, I infer you do not come from a truly democratic country[...]

You are completely and entirely incorrect. I am from the EU and I wish my country would stop abiding by the inane regulations set by the EU that you seem to love.

> At the very least, I know for a fact that every member of my family also feels the same, and that gives me confidence that the majority outside of the HN/tech bubble also feels the same.

> I don't quite understand your points here,

> This is how I experience art, and I'm sure a lot of other people experience it the same way: not as a product, but as art.

My point is you ARE defining what art is, you are saying it is not art unless the viewer goes through the same experience as you. Just... why.

2.0 uses a new text encoder trained from scratch and it just did not capture the same famous names as the OpenAI CLIP used in 1.x.

You can't test that ability and if you can't test it how are you so sure of it? You're guessing, you're making a narrative in your head, you cannot know if it matches reality.

You care about the author, great. Some don't give a rat's ass about the author. Are those people unable to appreciate art? If they are capable why do you insist on knowing intent being necessary for art?

> Not all people are blinded by the awesomeness of a new technology

Ah, well we are lucky that you, the one that sees, is here to tell us the TRUTH.

> Regarding legislation, I see I have struck some chords here

Yes, of course, it is violence. If you support legislation you support violence. There is no effectual legislation without violence. So if you think AI should be legislated get up and go punch some researchers yourself. Don't send others do the dirty work for you.

Never meant to say otherwise.

> Process is actually very easy to infer if the art is made by a human, since the emotions that are being conveyed by the humans behind the screen are displayed directly on screen.

I couldn't disagree more, unless you have some method, some mechanism I know not of you are only guessing. It is good guessing because humans are more alike than not but still only guessing.

Often not even the artist himself knows the process.

I have grown to abhor legislation, if you want to aggress the users of AI tools then do it yourself without the help of the state.

What now. Is my inner experience of art not valid? How do we reconcile this?

You don't get to define what is art. Art can and does move people who have absolutely no idea of what the process to create it was.

You have your way to experience art, it isn't the only way. In fact you have a limited ability to learn about the process, how much of it are you making up in your head?