Mastodon Feed
slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:
It's astonishing how many web developers are still hand-wringing about the future of WebKit in a world of true iOS browser choice.
Safari will be fine unless Apple continues to chronically under-fund WebKit...and that's a choice Apple gets to make; nobody else.
https://infrequently.org/2022/06/apple-is-not-defending-browser-engine-choice/
Mastodon FeedReblogged by slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell"):
anniesullie@indieweb.social ("Annie Sullivan") wrote:
Mastodon FeedReblogged by zack@toot.cafe ("Zack"):
0x1C3B00DA@lemmy.ml wrote:
Mastodon Feedpzmyers@octodon.social ("pzmyers 🦑") wrote:
The spiders demand my service.
Mastodon Feedpzmyers@octodon.social ("pzmyers 🦑") wrote:
It's hard to believe that this demented narcissist actually was the American president. It's humiliating.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2022/12/15/this-fruitloop-was-our-president/
Mastodon FeedReblogged by kornel ("Kornel"):
catsalad@infosec.exchange ("CatSalad🐈🥗") wrote:
Mastodon FeedReblogged by cstanhope@social.coop ("Your friendly 'net denizen"):
lobotomy42@mstdn.party ("Greggo") wrote:
Mastodon Feedbcrypt@infosec.exchange ("yan") wrote:
a bit of personal news.... i bought my first car on Tuesday and sold my first home today! which makes 14/12/2022 the only day when i've owned both a home and a car LOL
Mastodon FeedReblogged by cstanhope@social.coop ("Your friendly 'net denizen"):
Chrishallbeck ("Chris Hallbeck") wrote:
Mastodon Feedxor@tech.intersects.art ("Parker Higgins") wrote:
i'm just a little guy and it's my birthday
Mastodon FeedYou can’t spell fun without F-U
Mastodon Feedcstanhope@social.coop ("Your friendly 'net denizen") wrote:
One last AI/ML thing from me, and then I'll put this topic down for a while.
Businesses are training large models on the work of artists without their permission so that their work can be automatically remixed at scale to provide a service.
This is very different from artists learning, sharing, and inspiring each other through the generations.
One is an ongoing heirloom project. The other is a short-term grift that threatens to undermine the very thing it is attempting to extract value from.
Mastodon Feedpzmyers@octodon.social ("pzmyers 🦑") wrote:
Seven times one is seven, therefore God. Numerological arguments are so stupid.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2022/12/15/do-you-want-100000-or-is-it-200000/
Mastodon Feedpzmyers@octodon.social ("pzmyers 🦑") wrote:
An exemplary teacher makes Fox News angry.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2022/12/15/fox-news-is-mad-at-a-minnesota-teacher/
Mastodon FeedReblogged by cstanhope@social.coop ("Your friendly 'net denizen"):
axwax@fosstodon.org ("AxWax") wrote:
Mastodon FeedReblogged by jeffsonstein ("Jeff Sonstein"):
augieray ("Augie Ray") wrote:
Mastodon FeedReblogged by jeffsonstein ("Jeff Sonstein"):
jhilden@vis.social ("Jonatan Hildén") wrote:
Mastodon FeedReblogged by jeffsonstein ("Jeff Sonstein"):
jakecoppinger@aus.social ("Jake Coppinger") wrote:
Mastodon FeedReblogged by jeffsonstein ("Jeff Sonstein"):
TheGuardian_us@newsrelay.org ("The Guardian US") wrote:
Mastodon Feedpzmyers@octodon.social ("pzmyers 🦑") wrote:
It's too true, what a Midwestern winter is like.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2022/12/15/another-snowstorm/
Mastodon FeedIf good Python code looks pythonic, then good Go code should certainly look gothic.
(via @xssfox)
Mastodon Feedcstanhope@social.coop ("Your friendly 'net denizen") wrote:
(I get it. I'm not ignorant enough of history to not understand exactly how much some parts of humanity don't value other parts at any given time... It's still depressing.)
Mastodon FeedReblogged by blithe ("Blithe"):
rchusid@med-mastodon.com ("Ron Chusid :verified:") wrote:
Mastodon FeedReblogged by cstanhope@social.coop ("Your friendly 'net denizen"):
selzero@vmst.io ("Deniz Opal") wrote:
Mastodon Feedcstanhope@social.coop ("Your friendly 'net denizen") wrote:
Part of what I find depressing about some AI/ML discourse is that people seem to be honestly debating things like, "does it matter if a machine made this 'art' and not a human?"
Yes! It matters! People matter! My god, what is wrong with us? Humanity matters! Those machines, whose output converted to colored pixels we are dreamily staring at, won't get very far without us. Stop spending so much time and effort valuing and nurturing machines.
Value and nurture people. Value each other. Please...
Mastodon Feedcstanhope@social.coop ("Your friendly 'net denizen") wrote:
Anyway, the nice thing about this AI image generation is that if it succeeds in killing off people's motivation to get into art, it will ultimately dry up the well it used to get started in the first place. It will be a shame for humanity, but as long as the machines are happy...
I hope artists of all stripes take steps to protect themselves from their work being used to train automated remixing machines.
As for me, I'll be checking the labels to make sure a human made the work.
Mastodon Feedcstanhope@social.coop ("Your friendly 'net denizen") wrote:
I admit I am biased. I value humans over machines. I don't care what a machine "thinks". And I don't value the prompt maker any more than I value the "idea man" who tries to take all the credit. I'm always more interested in the people that actually get the job done.
For AI generated art, the people that actually got the job done were the artists whose works were used to train the machines.
Mastodon Feedcstanhope@social.coop ("Your friendly 'net denizen") wrote:
I'm also unconvinced with the camera analogy. It's not like photographers went out and started photographing all the existing artists' works and passed it off as a service. Camera's were a new technology and did displace illustrators (not just portraitists) over time, but they were still operated by humans and required real effort to go off and compose and take new pictures.
Mastodon Feedcstanhope@social.coop ("Your friendly 'net denizen") wrote:
I disagree with "The AI model is no different in function" and "the morality of it is actually quite similar" to human artists.
Automated remixing at scale is quite a bit different from humans learning from each other over time. Passing on skills and knowledge from generation to generation.
The idea that because no single human can view all the art currently being generated doesn't make a convincing argument as to why AI generated art isn't a threat to artists' livelihoods.
Mastodon Feedcstanhope@social.coop ("Your friendly 'net denizen") wrote:
I saw this posted elsewhere, and instead of getting grumpy in their mentions, I'll just get grumpy on my own thread:
https://opguides.info/posts/aiartpanic/
The overview of how things work seems fine.
I would like a citation for this: "the act of training a neural network on datasets like this has already been decided to be legal", as I don't recall a fair use case on this (maybe I missed it). Any fair use case in the US is going to look at the four points here:
