prototype_g2

I would say this is an overall positive: The more people are aware of how easy it is to create fake this with AI the better, I would say. That would make people less likely to fall for it in the future, especially for something with greater consequences than just a parade that didn't exist.

Honestly, I don't see why CSS theming is important. The customization is nice and all, but that's not going to make people switch to Firefox. There are many other things that could be improved, like adding tab grouping. I use this extension called Tree Style Tab which I cannot live without. Firefox having something like that by default instead of an extension would be nice.

However, having said that, OperaGX did find quite a lot of success by simply making it easy to theme the browser, so I can see where they are coming from.

Philosophy is fine and all but we can't forget that from a practical standpoint, all this philosophizing is useless. We can't live our day to day lives operating under the belief that the material world doesn't exist and using The Problem Of Knowledge as a way to dismiss empirical evidence by stating that we can't be sure if the material world even exist is impractical and useless. Remember: Philosophy is completely useless. The only value you will find in it is the development of critical thinking skills.

Just imagine if a murdered caught red handed could get away scoot free by just saying "Hey, you can prove the material world exist, therefore you can prove the victim ever existed!"

It's the problem of knowledge all over again. Something which philosophers have been debating for centuries. But I highly doubt you have studied any of it.

That whole thing of "facts are just opinions" is nothing more than the devaluing of empirical evidence and turning observable facts into a matter of opinion, turning any and all political discussion into a shouting match where nothing ever comes of it because "it's just my opinion". This propaganda tactic is called "The Fire hose of Falsehood".

I could go on and on about the nature of knowledge and the evolution of science, but I highly doubt you would care as you do not seem to know even the most basic things about The Problem of Knowledge and choose to go the self-contradictory skeptic route of "Knowledge doesn't exist".

Edit: I would just like to add that just because our sense are 100% reliable that doesn't mean that everything is false.

Nope.

When humans make art, they are constantly making decisions. Decisions, decisions, decisions. With every stroke of the pen, with every color (not just a generic pink, blue or yellow, but specific tones and shades of those), with every everything they to while making that piece, they are making a lot of micro-decisions. Those decisions are made in respect to the person that is making the art, as their personal life experiences are what dictate how they make such decisions, even if they don't notice it.

AI art is not like that. With AI, you type a prompt and outcomes an image. The user does not have a say in any of the micro-decisions that when into making that piece. The AI it self isn't making any decisions either, it is just making the mathematical weighted average of what images with a description with similar tokens look like, and simply copying said decisions. The AI does not decide, it simply regurgitates previous decisions.

People that say that AI could be used as a tool to help artists clearly as never pickup a pencil to draw. The thing that makes an artists voice, that makes that art theirs are the decisions they make while making their art.

When you are drawing something, you are constantly making small micro-decisions with every stroke of your pencil, and those decision and how you make them is what makes art so beautiful, as no two artists make those decision the same way and each artist as a certain consistency in those decisions that evolves with them as a person. As such, art is so much more than a pretty picture, it is a reflection of the person who made it. Those decisions are also the fun part of making art.

AI art doesn't let you make any decisions: you type the prompt and out comes an image. An image made of an weighted average of human made images with a similar description. You have no say in the micro-decision the machine makes, you have no say on where exactly the pencil strokes go. Therefore this machine is useless for artists. You might say "Just edit the image!", but that doesn't help either, as editing the image still doesn't give you that micro-level of decision making. Also, editing a flat image with just one layer is just as useful as any other image form any search engine image search result. Unlike text, which can be easily edited to be exactly what you want.

I know their might be some wait to integrate machine learning into art, but right now the tools available don't do that.

This image is AI generated. Look closely at the smaller text, it's all mangled.

This kinda stuff should be opt-IN, not opt-OUT. Just think of how many people don't even know this is happening, or that there even is an opt-out.

Reminder that neutrality and compromise isn't always a good thing.

I don't think you understand exactly how theses machines work. The machine does not "learn", it does not extract meaning from the tokens it receives. Here is one way to look at it

Suppose you have a sequence of symbols: ¹§ŋ¹§ŋ¹§ŋ¹§ŋ And then were given a fragment of a sequence and asked to guess what you be the most likely symbol to follow it: ¹§ Think you could do it? I'm sure you would have no trouble solving this example. But could you make a machine that could reliably accomplish this task, regardless of the sequence of symbols and regardless of the fragment given? Let's imagine you did manage to create such a marvellous machine.

If given a large sequence of symbols spanning multiple books of length would you say this pattern recognition machine is able to create anything original? No... Because it is simply trying to copy it's original sequence as closely as possible.

Another question: Would this machine ever derive meaning from this symbols? No... How could it?

But what if I told you that these symbols weren't just symbols: Unbeknownst to the machine each one of this symbols actually represents a word. Behold: ChatGPT.

This is basically the general idea behind generative AI as far as I'm aware. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is obviously oversimplified.

It's funny because I'm pretty sure you haven't lived in a communist country either. So you're arguing that lack of personal experience invalidates all arguments in favour of communism, but your lack of personal experience living in a communist country somehow doesn't invalidate your arguments against communism. Yup, perfectly consistent.