_"People asked for it, so here's the music from my videos"_ AWW YEAH!!!

bought the album, thanks for the great stuff

Oof, that was a HUGE gap between "free-er the market - free-er the people" and the socialist message at the end. I honestly thought you had a political schizophrenia with "we should regulate the market, but free market is actually better, as my [totally not government enforced] mantra says". Good job man! Really hq vid you got there.

@@user-eq1rn1lr9m your listening comprehension is so faulty lmfao. Wanna share time stamps of parts you feel contradict each other ?

@@user-eq1rn1lr9m bruh

To be fair I think those jobs that we dont like are the ones that most of the population are employed in so if all of a sudden they wanted automate all the unwanted jobs people would be in uproar under the threat of unemployment by automation. But I dont think people will care very much if its just a sliver of the job market thats being automated such as artist , this is also compounded by the fact that more people benifit from ai art than some higher ups that benifit from making somthing like autonomous machine that makes production more efficient.

For the average person using AI to make art I suspect it's a kind of creative expression they didn't feel able to indulge in before. Art is hard and I've known many people who've given up on it. I don't hold AI use against these folks. On the other hand, people and companies who are using AI to save a buck and cut out artists? Fuck them. It's already difficult enough to support yourself making art.

It's almost like full automation is an unrealistic sci fi meme and this video never actually talks about that aspect other than stating stuff that everyone already knows and getting angry at generated images as if the ai is taking away jobs from creators (its not). Really, so long as a robot cannot even fold a piece of fabric that is given to it, something that proves to be exceptionally hard to do, a chimp will be more useful in a factory than an AI. Looks like we are all just going to have to keep struggling in this process we call life like our ancestors before us. Maybe that's not so bad.

​@@dreyri2736but It is taking jobs from creators, there already book covers who have been done by a human previously and now are AI generated, brand design, anime backgrounds, commissioned art, there already stories of people training Ai on the Art of an artists the previously commissioned and in the future it will take more jobs, specially entry level jobs, I agree there probably won't be a fully outmated future any time soon, but automation always have a downside and people often struggle to pivot and sometimes can't after their jobs are outomated out of existence and capitalists are always trying to increase their profits, so if they can fire some employees to cut cost even if AI isn't perfect, they will do it, they already done with most of phone and online costumer service and it's awful.

I'm alarmed by this use of "cath" as a verb that I haven't previously come across. "The fact that I and all my cynicism didn't"... catheter this? What?

I never understood this criticism of A.I. I mean farm equipment replaced 90% of farmhands but I don't think people are complaining about tractors

@@playerslotavailable3810 I don't see any industry growing in terms of demand to such a huge scope that it'll allow the current amount of jobs to stay the same while also providing massive automation tools. It's just not the same as farming, which needed to be automated to allow for humanity to survive in scale.

@@KyfowThe printing press.

@@sxnorthrop Do you really think that there will be such a massive increase in demand for production, that it'd go in line with the increased productivity that'll happen in the AI revolution? I just don't see it. I'll be happy to be proven wrong.

​@@Kyfow I think I may have misunderstood your original point. I thought we were comparing technology that created a staggering transition in the economy due to it's demand. That, if looked at consistently, would show that society had a very short "grief" period for the countless lost jobs and livelihoods of illuminators and copyists (binders, bookmakers, etc.). Same will be true for ML (in my opinion). That being said there's really not enough data for anyone to make a confident assertion that ML will have the same or comparable impact. I was simply providing a hypothetical comparison to something that showed that the "bottom line [was] more important than helping someone grow as a professional and enriching society as a whole [through creative expression]", and yet today we don't think twice about how it affected multiple generations of people who experienced turmoil as a result. Every pivotal moment in history has some groundbreaking technology or discovery that was never thought possible before and it mostly ends up just making us better at what we already did before (not commenting on whether that's right or wrong ethically). TL;DR, I'm using a past example, not a current. The printing press is a perfect example of technology that destroyed lots of livelihoods (and was driven forward in-part by 'money hungry business moguls') but we don't care about it at all. It created a shift in society comparable to something like the AI revolution would create.

Who does?

​@@theyellowarchitect4504Microsoft

@@dtech1218 They don't like it either, that's why they are trying to change it (to their benefit), and even now they are still not satisfied.

Creating discomfort motivates change in a directed direction

brace yourself, it's gonna get so much worse

you just managed to formulate my thoughts for me (which considering the topic, is ironic) this has always been bothering me, as there's plenty of people with ideas, but very few who actually take the time to implement them, and even less people who learn to implement them better with each iteration. that same thought process also explains why its so popular.

Pretty much every AI bro I've met on the internet so far was an idea guy. And it's funny how they flip flop between "this will make artists' skills irrelevant" and "this proompt took skil, praise me"

@@vaiyt Exactly 😂 I've prompted for hours, im a true artist

But that's exactly how eNtRePrNeUrShIp works. U have an "idea" and a bunch of money to make ppl make sth actually useful out of it, then pocket most of the profit. The ideas bro has only one thing that separates him from the Elon Musks of the world: he's not already a millionaire.

If George Lucas had AI, would the prequel trilogy have turned out better? 🤔

its already been bland tbh, seen those ugly 2010s gray on gray interior design styles or those hideous 60s concrete british council towers? but i feel like even if ai takes over artists will still prevail, its not a simple industry like many other lost positions, its a exhibition of someones creativity.

David Firth speaking nothing but facts

Well at least you've got your rusty spoons.

David fifth 😂😂😂😂

And spoonless

Could not have been more out of nowhere lol

/) *brohoofs*

(\

A welcomed random aneurysm

That feeling of reading the comment as the words are spoken in the video

beautifully said!

Like voiceovers....for example

The vast majority of people are fine... you'll just do other jobs

@@dillonblair6491 well fuck those other people. i guess

​@@dillonblair6491the "vast majority" isn't everyone

Y2K

That is a danger and the danger that AI will become sentient is also absolutely a danger

​@@danielblank9917 They're two different dangers, and one is vastly more immediate a concern. While it is important to learn how AI algorithms reach the decisions they do from their sampling data so we don't accidentally make a sentient AI with unintended behaviours, it's mostly a hypothetical pre-emptive problem. We have no idea if or when a truly sentient AI will be built. On the other hand, people trying to offload culpability onto non-sentient AI is a real problem we already see.

@@danielblank9917 no, that is literally the least dangerous thing about AI (because it can't happen)

​@@Jonas-SeilerWhere are you taking this confidence from? Do you think it will not happen in a near enough future to care about or do you think it can't happen in principle? Also, AI doesn't need to actually be sentient to be dangerous, being more intelligent than humans is already enough.

I genuinely never thpught there were many people THIS desperate. Fuck, I'm lonely and possibly depressed as all hell and I would never stoop to something this... sad. Dehumanised. *Artificial.* The fact the market for this exists alone is depressing...

@@Box-O-Soldier It's super depressing man. I made an oath to my self I'd never get that low. Best thing we can do is keep ourselves busy I guess

@@backoffpeer Nay, the best thing we can do is hold ourselves to a standard of our own choosing, keep our "spine" and integrity intact. I just wish that more people chose this instead of brainless complacency.

@@Box-O-Soldier I'm the type of guy that watched Blade Runner 2049 and thought to myself "Dang! I wish I had a robot girlfriend." ngl life is bad enough I would buy that shit

Yep. I believe there's an AI service out there that charges quite a bit of money for a chance to chat up with AI, it's so scummy. At best I'd really only ever use AI like this for fun and leisure. I'm fortunate to already have people in my life to connect to, but not everyone has that luxury. . .

It would be a better world if generative AI and anything resembling it was banned outright.

@@Pvinini Banning won't make it go away, unfortunately. It would just make it even harder to control.... As history illustrates with all attempts to ban things that there's an active demand for...

Made for WHICH humans is the question huh?

Businesses will pay more for tech that reduces their costs than consumers will for things that make their lives better.

@@rvantong Eugh, oof, *oof,* I don't like how true that quote is.

where in the video does it say that

01:06:49@@snail64

@@snail64 1:06:50

In a non-free market, when everything is normal you have to be punished.

​@@hollyjaw3303 in a society driven by money you have to be punished

The design is very human

You feel right. They are the bastard offspring breeds of man (women) and fallen angels (demons). Satanically animated machines. And they even go as far as claiming to be God's chosen! Exponentially more amazing still is that the very people that say they love the Most High God (instead of rightly fearing Him) actually believe that to be true! Once you notice them, you will see they do business everywhere. Many - many great men and painters throughout history have; and warned about them.

​@@petarhandle The-design-is-very-human guy was warning us all.

I couldn't have said it better myself. The point of art is the journey and the communication of ideas, not the result and profit.

You can still have the journey with AI art, it helped me a lot personally

@@LutraLovegood No you can't.

Why not? Can't u still do it uniquely?

@@danilo071983 Because handing off the process and the journey to let AI do it for you is the definition of skipping the journey, not a way of having the journey.

Would you prefer that progress stop in the meantime? What's the AI going to do that's so horrible? Jack up insurance rates when the health insurance industry should be nationalized, and we need more transit and bike infrastructure so that people don't need car insurance anyway?

manifest destiny was an objective good imo.

@@Ilyak1986 Well you automate one thing, then the next thing, then the next and before you know it the only jobs left will be AI maintenance. Not everyone is capable of that, so then you deal with a jobless problem, next a homeless problem and next a society collapsing problem. Even if AI could eventually think for itself, we will never get there because the creator's society will collapse before we can get there. Ironically AI is not the problem, but the missuse of AI trough human hands and corporate greed... That is the problem.

​@@Ilyak1986We could you know, demand more social responsibility from corporations and politicians who allow them free reins

@@Ilyak1986 "What's the AI going to do that's so horrible?" Just some things that AI already done: If you know how photoshop already was a problem in the past for creating fake images that were used and abused by fake news you will understand that AI image generation will be this but 1000 times worse because anyone can put the name of a real person there and generate many images that to most people will be a real photo, if AI was ethical it wouldn't generate images of humans at all because to surprise of no one is already being used for malicious end, to basic porn bots to revenge porn (and if you go to the underbelly even have the "great" children variety that already trying to push as normal and ok because no kid are being harmed). AI misinformation makes hard to find true sources and is destroying Google* and is already being deadly with the misinformation because has books about mushrooms with the wrong information so people that buy it can end up eating poisonous mushrooms and the one AI from a supermarket that made a recipe of a deadly gas as good ways to clean the house. *Look up "how many african countries start with K" on google and now remember that most people only read the first result

The only good thing to come out of AI is that clip of Joe Biden discussing potent weed

Much agreed

And doing my research for me

Prompt: Write a comment on the topic of "desire to leave behind the current era of formulaic and stale AI generated videos", in a manner that ensures that the comment will get broad recognition and user appeal, by choosing a recently popular snowclone format textual meme and inserting the topic as its variable term.

@@AexisRai sorry m8 gonna need my ai to read that for me

it's almost deliberately done to make people comment, imo... People will jump in and correct what was wrong but in turn drive up "engagement" and then the algorithm will push the video even more.

Same with the gorilla that was "taught sign language" heh

@@noisyash4234 I am, and no she wasn't :) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m52nedKlqbGpdmg.htmlsi=WdPR2n_UHn2nnkug

It was just another scam for government grants :)

it was actually when hans's trainer was unaware of the answer or not present. the horse was picking up on the trainer's body language, not the audience 😊

In academic literature about explainable AI, they actually call these faulty models Clever Hans predictors haha. There is a lot of research done to try to understand, when these models are right for the wrong reason. For example search for: Unmasking Clever Hans predictors and assessing what machines really learn

i've been noticing this trend with tiktok as well, your brain is literally being conditioned to not put in the slightest bit of effort to get rewarded and in a generation or so we'll see the horrible effects of it rear its ugly head once all the iPad kiddies grow up. Even older folks aren't immune, both of my parents are nearing their 50's and they use tiktok every day. The worst part is that this is literally what some companies want, and whether or not they're cognizant of that fact this is just what the market is going to do, make you consume the most slop at the lowest cost to them.

​@infiniminer7677 Good point. I think people don't understand that they think so called "free market" wants this and so it gets what it wants. What they aren't considering is that people's wants are being manipulated by the Edward Bernays market psychology even more so now with technology. What do you do when the people can be programmed into believing that their choices are there own when all of the sudden they are not?

@@infiniminer7677 well, tiktok is garbage, so there's your problem!

Kind of like television, which I ejected from my life a long time ago.

A common term to call this is "content sludge", if you're interested in additional reading lol

From people like Zuckerberg, Musk or Altman who practically doubled their wealth during the pandemic but now flush jobs down the drain in the thousands but hey u can make porn with midjourney so the techbros will just shrug

You have got to go through hell before you get to heaven.

Any tech revolution is going to hurt people. You think computers and the internet have not hurt anybody?

​@@christopherkrause337 Progress? This is 10 steps back

@@christopherkrause337that’s what AI is worth to you? _everything?_

It is though.

Double-plus good. I know they teach us to say this, but it really IS double-plus good! ☺️👍🏼

Something big is going to happen, I can feel it. The new American labor movement is ramping up. All I'm saying is that there's a lot of snakes in the grass right now, and it's time the billionaires got bit.

@@thediplomaticentertainer1785 No, it's not the time for another bloody revolution.

Saying something deep does not mean that it's true.

Greed always wins. Greed has been the one true political party for 1000s of years.@@thediplomaticentertainer1785

@@thediplomaticentertainer1785im sure you would have loved january 7th if they had paraded with a hammer and sickle

the problem is millions of americans still live in poverty in shit cities . there's not much to do irl where i live due to the heat aline

@nostalgiatrip7331 I agree but being online doesn't fix any of that, it's just an escape. I escape too so I'm not judging but it just feels less and less enjoyable

The internet is going through the same bureaucratic money-wringer that pretty much all public spaces went through before the internet existed. Cafes, parks, sports areas, town squares, etc. now require money upfront for access to their space and/or provide a bland free space and a pay-to-access fun space and/or are *technically* free but find ways to heavily discourage use without payment. It's part of the reason people fled TO the internet in the first place; you could generally do whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted and as long as you wanted, for free. Games, media, hobbies, socializing, it was all completely untethered to money and the real world. Now that enough businesses and corporations have figured out how to monetize all the "public spaces" and "free-use services" of the internet, it's just one big, digital, global mall-city, where you can either pay to do what you want (directly through giving funds or indirectly through selling personal data and watching ads) or you can sit in a corner and frown for eight hours. It was only a matter of time, but it sucks that it's already come to pass in our lifetimes.

What's stopping you?

@@nostalgiatrip7331Well, be consoled by the fact that some would actually love to be able to live and run around naked in a warm sunny place... but instead they must be dressing up and wondering how to pay the heating bills in a climate where half of the year it's wet and dark outside.

It's already happening, sort of. Problem is, it's China. We don't know if that one Chinese company that replaced their CEO with an AI (with obviously a human liaison) is real or just a CCP fluff.

imagine co-ops with AI CEOs. As dystopian as that sounds (to be working for a machine), the awesome part might be seeing what a companies pay structure looks like without having to pay the CEO 500 times what the rest of employees make. That seems like automation that could save some money right there.

@@jasonmast7769 if it's training data really comes from a bunch of internet comments, it would probably redistribute the wealth among workers immediately.

@@nathanrocks2562 It would probably kill them all and replace them for being inefficient. Wealth exists to grow more wealth.

CEOs are the grounds keepers of the capital investment upon which companies are founded. CEOs are eliminated all the time. But the only reason CEOs exist is because the people who fund the company to begin with want them. CEOs are not required but desired. No company is forced to have a CEO if the people who fund it don't want one.

'The idea that anything that people wanted could be monetized for a profit eventually ended up sickening me.' Yes, people will pay for things that they're willing to pay for. The people who make those things will want to earn and reinvest some of that money. There's nothing wrong with that. That's freedom of choice.

I have written thousands of lines of code to make useful utilities for free since I just wanted the exhilaration of developing stuff and if if someone found something useful and emailed me about it, wow! Nothing like it. One upside is that writing so much code made me a better software engineer and also acted as a showcase for my hardwork.

@@jeremynewcombe3422 freedom of choice for the rich that is

I'm glad

At least partially comes from not knowing what art is... Most people enjoy "nice things"... Like a nice looking car, nice looking house, nice looking clothes, good music, inspiring movie... The list is endless. All of those involve or are entirely art

it is easier for them to adopt an attitude of contempt than to admit their lack of ability to comprehend art.

I'm an artist and I feel contempt for haughty, smug artists all the time.

@@grafplaten thanks for proving his point, everytime an artist dares to talk or use their platform for anything other than their art, they rapidly showcase how terrible people they are. Picasso was perhaps the greatest of all time, and he was pretty terrible too. Most online social media "artists" who live on commissions have the attitude of Picasso and maybe 1% of the skill. Everytime you send a death threat to a ML developer I celebrate more and more your imminent downfall. Time to apply for a 9 to 5, "artist".

Fortunately, it means they can represent their horrific taste out and proud

KZfaq users always write about how socialism is better than capitalism. But the irony is that when it comes to AI, youtube users judge it as if capitalism is unquestionable. So AI is attacked rather than capitalism. It is so easy that users don't even have to be paid.

@@menjolno have you heard of "redundant systems"

When you place total power in the hands of childish gods, you had better also kiss your world goodbye at the same time. They'll destroy it in order to milk maximum personal gain out of it, you'll be powerless to do anything more than complain and watch it happen, and in the end you'll all die together. Except, they'll die with a warm binkie they refuse to share with you. Maybe best keep a shiv on you through all that so you can take it away from them as the sun goes out on a devastated planet.

The moment creatives stopped owning their companies is the moment art stopped being produced

Quantity over quality = our present AI "revolution"

You profile picture is making me happy. :) thank you for the memories

People who don't want to think will find a way to be stupid with or without an AI. Fuck'em. Hopefully, they're going to get exactly what they want, and be able to exist as immortal and nearly mindless hedonists in FDVR pods for eternity, and leave the rest of us alone. As for jobs, I'm actively rooting for AI to take every job ASAP. I want to live in a world where no human is able to contribute anything of any meaningful economic value to society, because I think that's the only scenario in which we pull our collective heads out of our asses and make a strong push for a more egalitarian, human-centric system, as opposed to a hierarchical, profit-based one.

Nonsense. You could make the same argument about calculators, that they hurt mathematics because we rely on them giving us the answer instead of calculating it in our heads. AI will not "kill creativity", just like calculators did not kill our mathematical abilities. People will simply use their creativity more effectively and not waste with stuff an AI can do. The critics of AI are the same as their prophets. One side claims it will be a revolution that frees us from all ills and the other that it is the devil that destroys humanity as we know it. Nonsense.

I’m a uni student who’s half way through writing my dissertation and although using ai to help hasn’t really been a temptation for me, it’s fairly often used by other students. Most of them reword and change what it spews out but they can still get caught by plagiarism scores and lectures who know their shit. My dissertation advisor even mentioned a time when a student submitted a completely AI written dissertation snd failed their entire degree because it created doubt about how much of their work is actually their own original work. For me it’s not really been a much of a thought because I don’t want to risk my degree over something so stupid, plus I enjoy knowing my work is 100% a result of my own effort and time. Even if there wasn’t the risk of disqualification I find AI is only meh at answering questions that are popular and makes very generic responses and is practically useless for anything niche.

Prove it, and will believe you.

@@timothyblazer1749 You'll find Anders name in the link under my comment as well.

I like the artstyle and it looks like a neat game.

It's been a relief to hear experts are feeling the same way I am. I don't think we're going to get out scot-free, but OpenAI could at least go out of business once the hype really dies down. Little victories.

1) loved the video congratulations on the stellar job you did! Really like the editing style and composition! 2) without launching into a tirade and linking a bunch of papers, i optimistically give it ~10 years before it fades completely. Again, the math just doesn’t support the applications rn.

It's a shame, really. It's all very interesting stuff but silicon valley is trying to make it the next big thing, making folks think it's more than what it is.

Brhu, is just the next push on technology, digital field Its the same as when robotic arms where implemented in industry line Make job easier and more standar, better quality. Also made a lot of jobs useless. So obiously corpos are gonna capitalize on it This is not beause cof the technology, but the nature of capitalism itself Money matters, anything else is secondary with human expenses at the bottom of said list. As money is power, and power let you do watever you want.

​@@nathanstruble8587 May I ask how Mathematics doesn't support the applications?

A politician (ex president in fact) from my country once said about climate change "It will kill my sons and my grandsons, but it won't affect me that much" or something along those lines. I think you're overestimating their capacity for empathy. After all, if they don't care about watching a thousand people die for their immediate benefit, why would they care about the possibility of hurting their family in a way they won't have to see?

Hate that darn format. I miss jpeg's on the web

@@GavenJr when the JXL standard is finalised webp will be obliterated. Imagine 30% better compression, thumbnails are redundant due to arbitrary progressive load through file truncation (no excuses, just cut off the data stream at data/quality limit), and perfect jpeg back compat transcoding.

I mean webp has both the qualities of jpegs and pngs with better compression than either, great for web development due to it having a low tax load on a server's bandwidth, it's just a shame that so much software has seemingly out right refused to support it for some reason.

PSA: WEBP can be changed into PNG seamlessly simply by renaming the file extension. I'm unsure if this is a feature of Win10 doing something behind the scenes, or if the data itself can be reinterpreted so easily.

@@TeamMuggi when I've tried that it makes the image darker; loading it in GIMP and exporting it as a png or jpg feels more reliable to me

What I really appreciate and deeply admire is that there are still people who make and share art made by hand, who still try. I pretty much quit making art these days because it seems as futile as trying to outrun a race car on foot, and I have no idea how much mental fortitude it takes to still try in the face of imminent failure.

@@nobody-nk8pd I'm truly sorry to hear this. Like really. As you said competing with AI is impractical time-wise. You could get the same level of quality tho but that requires time and dedication. If you ever wanted to tackle art again, I'd advise you not to focus on this aspect of AI. I'd tell you to try to take advantage of it as much as you can to yield the best results for yourself. I still draw and render by hand but I also want to explore the world of AI and see how I can make the process of crafting a piece (obviously not by literally generating it) even more efficient.

​@@nobody-nk8pdPersonally, I love making art. Despite the fact that studying anatomy is incredibly soul shattering, the idea that one day I'll be able to make my own character from the ground up keeps me going. That's how I stay hopeful. It's less about the result, and more about the journey. I enjoy the process. Being an artist for a living is scary right now because of AI, but it has always been like that. Creative industry has always been brutal to get into, so it's nothing new. Basically, I just make art for myself, and if I get lucky to have my art be popular, I'll take it from there

As a regular art commissioner, I always appreciate the hard work put into the pieces I commission. It honestly inspires me to pickup a pencil and just draw things in my artbook, it looks crap for sure right now but I hope one day I can produce the same quality art that I regularly commission. And honestly, this has helped me understand that every stroke of a brush/pen matters in an artwork, which has made me respect hard working artists even more. Anyone who spends a long time honing their craft will always get my respect.

​@@nobody-nk8pdthere's still a lot of people who appreciate art made by a human being. I don't believe it's hopeless. If people adapt to the change without giving up drawing by hand, yah know there's always a way. Blockbuster went out of business when Netflix offered something new in rental. But there's one Blockbuster left! They just found a way to adapt to the change without having to do what Netflix is doing. There's always hope.

It's not exactly a direct quote

@@gluetubeserver I think it is but idk

There was a very similar line in a comic adaptation of Coraline I read recently. I posted a picture of it to Mastodon and THE Neil Gaiman boosted my post to his followers as well!!!

I think that people don't really understand how similar AI and Human brains are. Neural networks are literally based on working of Human brain. AI art is currently similar to visual imagery. No one conjures something utterly unique out of thin air, It's all inspired by previous works and their surroundings. It's weird to me how people call AI unoriginal when it replicates or tries to go through processes human brain undergo to develop a thought or visualization. There is no good or evil in AI. Tolkein, For all his virtue, was a rather conservative man bound by the frankly limited ideal framework of his time, unpossessed of ny real expertise or insight into our modern world, Indeed, he could not come to terms with his own contemporararies at times, as with his dislike of Dune. Not to detract from his achievements, Mind you, but one must take that into account when applying his sayings into a unrelated field.

If there is no evil in a neural network, and a neural network models a human brain, does that also imply that there is no evil in a human brain? It seems to me that - like humans - AI is capable of evil but isn't necessarily evil by nature (AI can produce good as well as evil). Tolkien saw a distinction between true creation and what he called "subcreation". True creation is e.g. God creating matter from the void. But anything a human does, like writing a story or making an AI which makes a story, would be "subcreation" - creating something novel out of what already exists. Tolkien saw writing stories as "revealing" them, not truly creating them (it's fascinating, read his Essay on Fairy Stories to learn more!). I believe the quote above is speaking of true creation more than subcreation. It explains why Morgoth and Sauron could not make their own races, and instead corrupted existing races (elves, men, ents) to create "new" races. But I don't think Tolkien would apply it to our modern AI. I do think he'd detest our modern AI, though!

Errrm yikes moment

yawn, just commie bs

In other words: "we're at the point where we need to choose if we want to keep serving or abolish capitalism"

For people with money to live in.

@@alexxx4434 no, for money to live in. There is a distinction, but it's important. Money supercedes people in a post-capitalist world. Even people with money serve money

That is an inherently flawed view of this topic. By that logic, the work of a team of 10 experienced human calculators should be better than a digital calculator. It is not. Human history is the history of people trying to do "X" more efficiently. It is responsible for all our technological development. The very fact that we are here, debating this is felicitated by technology. In 20 years, AI would be as integral as the internet. I am not the biggest fan of Worker exploitation myself, But I think "art" is overly gated. Effort doesn't give you a right to authenticity nor compensation. Digging with your hands is effort but it's not going to get you paid more than a guy using a Excavator machine.

​@@darkushippotoxotai9536Bro is held at gunpoint by OpenAI 💀

@@darkushippotoxotai9536 not really the argument humans have always been about efficiency is recent and capitalistic view of the world but your right these things are more efficient and they will be accepted because of profit but thats the point of the video is that efficiency might just make art bland imagine games like ubisofts assassins creed the modern ones how would you feel if every game is as generic as that scratch that rather all art , music , movies being like that.

@@darkushippotoxotai9536They sold AI to us as a way to let us pursue things like art, things that we actually enjoy. Artists are now one of the first things that AI is replacing.

@@HyperkalemiaSineWave that's what 80's, 90's and early 2000s sold us on. They also sold us on jetpacks and mars trips.

I’m certain that if you could discern a 1000 by 1000 matrix by guessing within a couple of seconds, people wouls

Oh, really? And what happened in your first few years here on Earth? :) An AI model doesn't start from where you are now, you know.

@@70ME3E You don't understand the difference between a program and a brain......during your first years on Earth you would recognize the difference between a living being and a letter very quickly and you wouldn't need 1000 pictures to do it. The point is that these programs are called “artificial intelligence” but they are just programs and are not intelligent at all. This means that a program needs a lot of data in order to function reliably, so logically it doesn't have any intelligence but just a large database with data that has to be labeled. Such as "Beautiful Things" etc.......This alleged artificial intelligence is just a program with a database that responds to commands. Like “Draw a beautiful picture”. Then the program will search for these words and then combine the images it finds into something else.

@@videre8884 you don't? 1000 pictures is like a few minutes in life. And that's not how AI works. (take it from an AI practitioner)

@@70ME3E No, the brain is much faster and more efficient - you need milliseconds to see the difference and not 1000 images. If you needed or needed a few seconds to distinguish a dog from a letter, then you would have been put in a special needs class where all the children with learning disabilities go.

In other words: The stupid AI found a creative solution to a problem that humans didn't know before and indeed struggled to understand how it even worked before completely dissecting the AI blackbox. :D

Yup. My field is embedded hardware engineering and for a while, we too where looking at having to add AI inference in embedded systems. But much like with NeRF. Most of the planned uses just ended getting piecemeal replaced by regular algorithms and switch statements. Cause inference is expensive and often required some extra Neural processor like a Neural Compute-Stick to get anywhere fast enough. So slowly more and more tasks where being removed from the Neural Network part until eventually there where no actual models at work. Just regular algorithms that where small and efficient. The only thing we still use small neural models for, is computer vision. But that is so old and heavilly optimized via specialized libraries like OpenCV. That you can do it with any half-decent ARM system like a RPi zero.

On the one hand, this sounds hilarious because it makes it sound like progress was made, and then to justify their existence, they made a normal renderer that actually worked. On the other hand, regarding what actually happened, getting an AI to brute-force a good solution so it can later be chiseled out sounds like a very 21st century career.

@@stevencurtis7157 in this case AI didn't even bruteforce anything useful that got eventually "honed out". The actually novel and practical part of NERF(and many other DL "advances") is to formulate the task in a differentiable form so that it's _possible_ to optimize it at all with a "black box" optimizer of some sort. But as it repeatedly turns out, neural networks are just a really sub-optimal choice for such a "black box" optimizer, and there are other task-agnostic optimizer methods that perform simply better. So the big idea is to approach a task from an optimization standpoint (which was arguably never tried before NeRF in the rendering field), and that is the novel and important part, and neural networks are just one sub-optimal way of accomplishing it.

Kind of a bad take take. NERF got useful after instant ngp, and I have used it in robotics. With Gaussian Splatting, yeah, the neural network architecture got removed, but it still is machine learning because it uses gradient descent to the core.

Fun fact: AI books exist. Now, the reason that's fun and not depressing is that they were so unsuccessful they didn't even make it into the news cycle.

@@EnigmaticGentleman His name is Onision.

There is no such thing as imagination. You can remember, and you can merge those memories together, but you can't imagine something you haven't experienced or seen before. Sorry, but there is no security in that thought, I'm afraid.

Can you?

@@aurora7207 Your claim is objectively false. THe fact that HP Lovecraft imagined the Elder things debunks your point. HR Giger and all of his works debunks your point. The fact that our mind created the color magenda debunks your point.

Could've just asked an AI. I love the irony that all these dick head youtubers who want to be "hated" can't even write a more compelling summary of the threats posed by AI than an AI. And then they have the balls to blame other people for bloated nonsense in a video that is 1.5 hours. Several good points that have been touched on in many other videos but fucking hell man, what an overall waste of time.

Good luck getting your friends to watch a video that's longer than 5 minutes, never mind an hour.

A lot of the people are already ready to give up their own mind to become a mindless drone. They think it would take away only the bad and undesirable stuff from them, not seeing that it would take everything and leave them an empty shell, uncapable of thought, emotion, action.... life.

​@@christopherkrause337 you simply do not care about slave labor and the destruction of jobs for millions, got it

@@theghostcreator776 Artists and writers are really scared of competition.

It used to be better It used to be so much better...

When I first came to it, it was like that, my head exploded Now it just responds to anything with "so you do it"

I don't know why, but it feels like we've gone backwards since AI dungeon. AI generated stories are just not as fun as they were when that came out.

​@@Jerryfan271I think it's because it got less inconsistent. Earlier AI dungeon was far less intelligent and more creative in how it did things and I miss that

@@martianscienceenthusiast A.I Dungeon both changed models and censored itself. Majority left due to that and other previous stuff.

Absolutely

You should read Yanis Varoufakis' most recent book.

I think the current implementation of AI is the only natural conclusion of this technology under capitalism. AI is just accelerating many of the existing problems of capitalism and depersonalizing them

When an environment produces something that destabilizes its own ecosystem, is the problem the thing doing the destabilizing or the environment itself?

@@aarvlo It's the natural conclusion of technologization. I forget who said it, but "The Soviet Union and us [the US] have the same goal: technical efficiency!"

@@echoecho3155 Well, good thing that you forgot who that goofy was, because "technical efficency" was never a goal to begin with. Historically and nowadays, effeciency serve a purpose, then, an intention. Efficency for it's own it's not an idea but a closed loop that looks like what an AI would make as a gibberish to fill its emptiness.

@@Factuel-ry7zi I think you may have misunderstood my meaning. Jacques Ellul posited the idea of "technique," a mindset by which all human activities are subjugated to rational, technological methods of increasing a system's order and efficiency - reducing cost, removing roadblocks, and maximizing output. Whether it's utilizing AI to mass produce art-as-content or forcing peasant farmers off their land and into factories to maximize production, the mindset is the same. Humanity is subordinated to maximize the system's efficiency. As all economic systems seek to more efficiently utilize resources, whether socialist, capitalist, or communist, they all submit to technique. So yes, the USSR and US pursued the same goal: maximize technical efficiency at human and environmental cost. Both were at the mercy of technique as a guiding ethos. John Michael Greer's writing on "Progress" as an ersatz civil religion are also relevant, as that ensures technique proliferates.

exactly

Sad that the people who would have the exact opposite position to yours also believe that MGS2 and MGS4 predicted what _they_ believe to be the story of today. (I.e., people who believe that people like McGee and you are economically illiterate SJWs or socialists who are either ham-fistedly trying to cage AI that could greatly improve the world, ignoring the "science fictional" type of existential threat that AI can pose to humanity, or somehow both at the same time; they also will point to MGS2 and be like "so visionary, Kojima would agree that I'm like Philanthropy and @cromtuiseagain is like the Patriot AIs".)

@@coreyander286 honestly saddened by the idea they could take in all that stuff about echo chambers, fake news and discourse in general becoming a shit show, and decide "kojima got it right, my worldview is exactly what he meant" and go back to shitting on "the SJW's/political group i don't like" in an online group designed to discuss that one and only thing without a second thought i'm lucky i'm irritated by loud noises and people, those echo chambers must be hell on the brain

MGS 2 honestly was optimistic in making its big bads the metaphysical representation of the US government, when what we got in reality is the ideological amalgamation of the most insufferable nerds on the planet

​@@coreyander286based take

​@@Graknorkecan't be any truer than that. The entire world of tech is just governed by the worst type of nerds that got soo successful that they basically became the jocks that would bully them at school instead of growing out of it.

I wouldn't really call it scamming. They requested a sketch the artist delivered and was payed. No scam involved

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@rene3924That’s a terrible take. That’s like asking someone to fix your plumbing, before they come in and take your money and “fix” it, and after the fact realizing that they did nothing. You lose out on time and money and they gain your money in return. The artist loses out on time while the customer gets the thing they want for free. It’s parasitism. Only one side gains while the other loses. When the customer requests a sketch they do that so they can confirm that this is the product they want. Usually it’s also a deterrent for customers to make any demands changing the artwork before it reaches its final stages, because they’ll already have the artwork they’re satisfied with.

@@rene3924 I don't think you understand. Artists are paid based on their time and effort. Getting a completed work from their sketch is cheating them out of the money they should have been paid.

​@peaberry9413 A completed work, not her completed work. Any artist can take a sketch and "finish it" in many different ways. I don't see an issue with running an algorithm on someone's sketch that you purchased (so really, your sketch). I do see a moral issue with selling the new artwork, but I do not know who would truly own the piece. It is transformed, so technically new. But it was done by an algorithm which legally can't copyright artwork. 🤔 Hmm.. I think ultimately it's legal to sell, but illegal to copyright. I still stand on the grounds that it's a shitty thing to do to an artist though.

@@acebinko1 I guess I should add on that maybe some artists would also do the sketch for free BEFORE asking for payment, in which case if the client declines to go further - and thus the artist isn't paid - they could still run the sketch through the AI anyway. I can't recall the last time an artist WASN'T asking for some form of payment up-front, though, and it's probably to combat stuff like this.

I absolutely despise the latest revisions of autocorrect that automatically "fix" your "typos" (I'm a touch typer and instinctively know when I've mistapped a key)

glazing

​@@fattshea8085are you stupid

interesting line go up cideo

@@chlorine--17 excellent comment, my friend

Also, I am hoping that AI's algorithms become very transparent to the user, where they tell you and show you exactly what they are doing, what actual images in their database they are shifting through/melding together etc. Its very important to see the dark sides of the AI's algorithms, it will make sure that younger people make the right choices.

that's not really practically possible; one of the most fundamental limitations of any kind of computer learning is that you don't learn what the computer does; the images don't exist anymore in the dataset, they've been distilled into rules. i'm not educated enough to completely rule out the possibility of something like that existing, but it would have to be a fundamentally different technology than is currently in use@@DonnyKirkMusic

well, was it not a game?

THe problem with AI is that it's neither Artificial nor Intelligent... a human somewhere has to add input into the system from then on there are a bunch of conditions (if else). Sure maybe they are using all our input all the time to train the model, but if you try to give AI problems that require some real thinking instead of repeating some existing model it fails miserably.

@@BillClinton228 thats not how AI works at all... atleast, thats not how neural network AI works, you should learn before you speak so confidently on a topic you don't actually understand

It is not the goal to simulate that. The goal is to make it work.

Then they’re not creating “intelligence”, are they?

It's worse. It's a plastic hamburger. And it will never work. I have it on good authority from an MIT PhD who worked for Deep Mind. He told me "they don't want to do basic research because that work could take decades, and new hardware that hasn't been invented. Instead, they just want to optimize the systems that are essentially churning out garbage. So we'll just get better garbage. AGI isn't even theoretically possible, and yet they keep saying it's right around the corner. It's the biggest grift I've ever seen" He went to work for a games company, and does language code now. He went back to compilers and computer language work.

Sure we can. We've done millions at once, even. It takes hundreds of billions to make anything useful though. We accurately simulated a very small slice of a mouse's brain.

@@wills.5762 no, we can't. We dont have any idea what axon-axon connections do, nor do we understand microtuboles. Nor have we yet to contend with the EM interactivity within a neuron, as a carrier of complex, rather than binary or simple linear data.

No one is going to stop you from creating art (of any form). Just don't expect to be paid for it by other people because they will get better art from AI. Also, replacing someone that his work can be done by a single computer is way easier than creating an entire robot for someone else's, but this time will also come in a few years.

Your future is so bleak and empty. The quality of people will continue to drop at exponential speeds and technology like this will continue to reward lazyness and conformity. Enjoy your life long imposter syndrome and deep self loathing and smol brain syndrome, oh and forget about any sort of character building the adversity of learning and failing facilitates.

​@@OnigoroshiZerowow. Just wow.

And it isn't by mistake. It is the first step towards complete control over us.

⭐capitalism⭐

I'm very curious, what do they ask you and how do you respond? I have a friend who is a programmer, he was questioned about similar things by employers, but luckily for him, his workplace eventually dropped the idea of forcing programmers to use AI. It's a plague.

it is a bubble.

Ai is Th

[thing] is bad now and will never improve okay thats a real argument and definetly not cope or a placeholder for my unwarranted anger i got from reading a twitter thread

@@hydroxide5507 You're putting words in their mouth. P.S. Your unwarranted anger is showing. :)

@@hydroxide5507 "unwarranted anger" lol, art theft doesn't warrant anger anymore huh? educate yourself kthx :)

When ever was that a 'celebration,' are you just making stuff up?, from the moment that saying became, all I saw was people trying to insult the technology, especially the artist community.

Updated as of-12/27/2023 ---------------------------------------------------- ​​I've been fascinated by what AI dose to what we think about authorship & originality. I think that AI will make use confront the possibility that ancient hominids producing "cultural artifacts" simply may not have anything to do with being sentient life at all. So when I watched this video, and saw some of the common misunderstandings about the technology of AI in relation to American copyright law. I thought hay I'll just slam out a quick explanation. lol 1). AI training sets are full of stolen art? --In America the training sets that are essential to the functioning of art AI were originally compiled by universities and research institutions under the classroom use exception to copyright I.E. fair use. so the artistic & literary works in these training datasets arguably compiled for the purpose of education didn't need to be licenced at the time thy were made. The why these training sets were made dose not imply that companies can also use them directly to make products, this present a problem for them. That will likely need to be hashed out in court. Open Source software on the other hand. Because they are not explicitly making a for profit product. Will likely be far more successful claiming “fair use" so it is IMO vary unlikely that training sets made this way in the past. can be stopped from being shard for the foreseeable future. 2). AI can't produce original ideas or art. --The American copyright office has touched on the problem of a "non-human creator" before. ---- "The 2014 Monkey selfie copyright dispute" --Resulted in a copyright ruling that works created by a non-human "Animal" creator immediately enter the public domain upon there creation. No matter how much knowledge and labor a human contribute to making things ready for that creation. I E "sweat of the brow" ---- "The 2023 Théâtre D’opéra Spatial dispute" --Resulted in a copyright ruling stating that Art AI are authors of the original works thay produce, “when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the ‘traditional elements of authorship’ are determined and executed by the technology-not the human user.” AI Registration Guidance, 88 Fed. Reg. at 16,192. And "Because Mr. Allen has refused to limit his claim to exclude its "non-human authorship elements," the Office cannot register the Work as submitted. " ---- "The 2022 Zarya of the Dawn Dispute" --Resulted in a copyright ruling that says in-part. ""Rather than a tool that Ms. Kashtanova controlled and guided to reach her desired image, Midjourney generates images in an unpredictable way. Accordingly, Midjourney users are not the “authors” for copyright purposes of the images the technology generates. As SCOTUS has explained, the “author” of a copyrighted work is the one “who has actually formed the picture,” the one who acts as “the inventive or master mind.” Burrow-Giles, 111 U.S. at 61. A person who provides text prompts to Midjourney does not “actually form” the generated images and is not the “master mind” behind them."" ---- The processes that humans naturally follow to create original art has been enshrined in copyright law, this is why we can separate. In a court of law: A copy of a painting. From a derivative of that painting. From a painting inspired by the painting,From a painting thats in the style of that painting. Being inspired by a pice of art you’ve seen, and then painting something original in that artists style. May be in bad taste but un-controversial if the AI were a human artists and not software. In short. If AI did not produce original art based on the "inspiration" it gets from mesmerizing the abstractions of billions images. The art produced would not fall into the public domain like it dose now because of non-human authorship. Instead it would be copyright-able tho an un licensed derivatives. End. -------- Update 10/09/23 After being challenged. And re familiarizing myself w/my sources. I got a date wrong, was un-clear in places and mixed a couple arguments together. I'm making edits to correct my errors. --------- Revision 10/10/23 Revision 10/11/23 ----------- previous comment- ------------------------------------------- I thought this video was insightful aswell. but little inconsistencys with how Jimmy McGee miss describes the tech, and how it works in relation to american copyright is what changed my mind. For example: In the US the training sets were originally compiled under the fare use exception in copyright law for research and education. and therefore the works in them don't need to be licenced, And this is one of the main stumbling blocks to wide use outside of academia. Thankfully Now an entire industry has sprung up to supply different legal sets to developers. The copyright office in the states has rulings on "Art AI's" from almost twenty years ago. That apply to the art of AI's that are made to follow "the legal process" that allows humans to make new art from All the art and things thay have seen over their life or are referencing at that time. For inspiration. without violating any of those copyright holders rights. the case im referencing was a programmer who invent an AI that replicated a dying & hallucinating human mind that autonomously outputted pices of new original religious art. He sued the copyright office when thy ruled against him. They ruled that the AI was being original, and a copyright was created for each pice of art it created. The AI isn't a human being tho and so couldn't defend its own copyrights in a court of law. Nor could the owner of the AI gain use of the copyrights ether. just because of the artist that created the art at question was his legal property doesnt mein he could clame its property.

Rainworld is shit

@@KzaksI don’t give a fuck about copyright law man I pirate half the games I play and run linux

And while I do have criticisms of this video and don’t fully agree with its conclusions (as with all of his stuff) it got me thinking about the issue from a new perspective I really did find insightful- I was actually excited to read your criticism at first to maybe help me understand some of my own disagreements with the video, until I realized it was some weird legal argument written in broken English. also I wrote the original comment while high as balls

I’ll have to give the video a rewatch sometime and try and formulate my thoughts and criticisms on it, I don’t entirely remember

Or missunderstand it

@@bluegamer4210 For real. If this is better than what he's learning at uni, he needs his money back

@@InnsmouthAdmiral They didn't say it was better, just more enjoyable. Many profs' lectures don't include a lot of humor or multimedia production.

It’s very heartening to hear, as an established and mostly isolated working adult who feels like corporations are just tearing everything to pieces, that educational spaces are bare minimum at least talking about this stuff seriously

just out of curiosity: Does thinking about this put you off the data science and AI world?

Word

I know what I'm watching tonight

Yeah. Pretty wild how quickly the devs completely removed all the AI art assets overnight. I almost wonder if they planned for it.

rlm sux

Pinterest is already becoming unbearable because of this. I used the site to collect art, but now I have to slog through so much AI shit.

"Hand-made" is such a weird way of putting it. It wouldn't exist if you didn't put your hand on it. What people need to do is not shun the tech, but to focus on open source, and not falling into subscribing for even more services.

@@illyaeaterI'm a purist, I guess, but I balk at the term "hand-made" when companies/people try to sell their "hand-made" furniture, that was all made with machines. Some guy recently got called out because his "hand-made" guitar was made using a CNC machine. Can you imagine the audacity? Like, if you're not gnawing at the wood like a beaver or clawing at it like a bear, is it even hand made?

@@fredmercury1314 Yeah I guess it's only really hand made if you spent 50 years distilling the sauce

We are literally just repeating what our ancestors always have done. When people were satisfied, or kind of okay with their lives, they let systems "control" them, when they had enough they changed the system (governance or nature itself, doesn't matter, just some kind of system they lived by). The only caveat I see to this is if (or when) we actually manage to "reverse engineer" our biology and mind and become able to play God with ourselves - not just our environment. We might kill our humanity in the process and a new age would begin when we no longer live by million years old rules.

Me too. About halfway through this video I picked up my pencil and just started drawing while listening. Capital has taken so much from us but they'll have to pry creativity away from my cold dead hands.

@@KirstyBaba 🙌

Never say die. I want art because its made by another person with something to say, not because im a machine that reacts to stimulus.

@lumariousthelion I am gonna subscribe in case you ever get around to uploading that art

By all definitions of Art, AI still falls under the “freedom of expression” category. Therefore, AI “art” can still be classified as such.

Who cares. The whole series is just random zombies, dragons, sex and murder.

If you wanted to watch it, you should've watched it by now. Shame on *you* for procrastinating for literal years of your life.

"using AI to build a drop-down menu" That one killed me :D

“Jimmy I need you to implement a model for server management in two weeks for our next earnings call do you think you can do that?”

Your way of writing made me read about the usage of "ask" in the English language. So you basically use the word "ask" in place of the word "question" or "request".

Ah the things you can do with LGBM or a random forest, and the people will come sprinting just to put a neural network there instead. It's all shapey statistics peeps, jeez! Get a glass of water and think about it for 2 minutes!

Yeah. Machine Learning long has had a place. Said place being mostly either for Computer Vision where a margin of failure is acceptable OR as a proof-of-concept to slowly get chipped away in regards of what is being doing by a model, till it is just a general Algoritm. Cause you rarely want something that says "Maybe it is that" to be in charge of anything critical and you often want it to be able to run on a Real-Time embedded system without affecting other tasks. But we had a breakthrough in a single sliver of AI as a whole (LLM) and suddenly Machine-Learning had to be crammed into everything for the sole purpose of tricking dumb gullible Investors into handing over big bags of cash cause AI bubble...

Worked for Mengele and Unit 731.

Actually pretty shitty antiscience take. Scientists cannot do "whatever they want" . Companies can.

@@backfischritter Nobody is trying to blame scientists here, this is aimed at silicon valley companies trying to use "scientific progress" as a smokescreen for creating more cultural and economic sludge.

@@backfischritterlol sure just entirely misread his intentions because he used terminology that scientists use too. stfu bro

@@backfischritter recent events pertaining to harvard for example show that scientists can do whatever they want as long as they dress it up in a science paper and "prove" something that will make a shareholder money. The science of old and the science of new are two different beasts, and like the guy said in the video, modern things tend to be about making money more often than not

Top 10 myths of Free Market:

How is that the inherent result of a free market?

@@hagoryopi2101 because when two people want the same thing, the person with more power has many ways and connections to make it happen, and the free market eventually just has boards of companies who only see the stock price, so the thing that they want most is the expansion and growth, this happens at every large company. And compared to normal people who still has some options, people down on their luck usually have few alternatives, as literal life saving services are also privatized, thus when something bad happens to you, you become valuable asset to companies, and not a fellow human being deserving of compassion. Just like gravity forms planets out of cosmic dust, free market eventually becomes a system well adjusted for making money at people's expense(for example planned obsolescence)

@@hagoryopi2101 When something bad happens to you, you are in a vulnerable position. When you are in a vulerable position, then a "rational value maximizer" *has* to exploit you (if they dont then they are either not being rational or not maximizing value).

@@justincenter4061 the most profitable way to "exploit" vulnerable people is to offer them some security. Instant loyal customer, most profit in the long run. Anything less than that is irrational violent "logic," the fallacious belief that keeping others down benefits oneself more than mutual growth.

Conflating the censorious, privacy-violating mega-conglomerate corporations with the incoming AI boom that they are leveraging against those that rely on (not merely use) their services isn't elucidating anyone. Also I haven't seen to the whole video yet but does he address the fact that not only is the majority of this research being conducted in the open but the industry is finally addressing the hardware problem with specialized accelerators, such that running very large models won't be the exclusive realm of quarter million dollar machines like the DGX A100? And then what?

Lol you caught me

not enough data put simply, if you're listening to someone with accent its hard to understand him the same goes for ai trying to understand words, if it doesnt know it tries to come up with words that are sounding somewhat similar when the bro in the vid speaks too fast trying to find the relatable word becomes impossible with the hardware it runs on. its not "immature" the models are actually quite advanced main limiter is and forever will be hardware and how much data there is. even a bad language model you built yourself could most certainly understand you (you as in you when youre trying speaking to it) but maybe not others because they speak different use, different words.

No, it doesnt, it makes you think you learned something while in fact you were lied to and decieved, absolutely baseleslly. Its horrible how people can be so easily swayed without asking for further sources or facts.

@@TheManinBlack9054 If you want to convince anyone of anything, you need to elaborate.