Woman here with a penis and hands:

It could be good? It seems to be vibrating, which my hands can’t do and I enjoy from my sex toys. Then the obvious in and out motion, as long as everything is lubricated, seems pleasurable too. Idk if you’d be able to use lube for a sperm donation though, I was told not to when I was getting my swimmers frozen. Maybe it’d be fine without lube though, if its somewhat flexy and not too tight.

Hope this helps.

I don’t agree with this argument at all, because if a human artist were to employ the same kind of algorithmic mimicry that an AI does, I would consider it plagiarism. There is a distinct difference between how a human observes and learns from other artists work, and how an AI does it.

Moreover, to take things out of the realm of plagiarism, if a human artist was mimicking the style of another artist and making bank off of it, and the original artist were to say “hey, that’s kinda not cool, I don’t appreciate this” you could have a conversation about how to accommodate both parties. With AI, there is no such conversation to be had, because it will replicate without barriers and do so in volumes that dwarf any sort of output the original artist could dream of, no matter how nicely you ask it not to, unless it was not trained on it in the first place.

Anyway, my pushback in my original message was not about the output being plagiarism or anything of the sort, it was about the usage of authors/artists work as training data (input) being non-consensual.

I don’t disagree that its a misstep, but it feels like one that is not going to be corrected. It is going to be treated as the normal thing to do with training AI.

I would hazard that there wouldn’t be nearly as many artists complaining about AI if it hadn’t been trained on immorally obtained inputs. The fact that it can effortlessly recreate the style of an artist that was added to the data without their consent is, I think, what gives most artists the visceral reaction that they have. “Not only is it doing what we can do (to some degree), it is doing so because our work was used without our consent”.

AI is a valuable tool for art if used correctly, I don’t know if I agree that it is a disability aid. I can perhaps concede that someone who is entirely without fine motor ability can now make colours and shapes that vaguely resemble what they had in mind where perhaps they couldn’t before, but its difficult for me to consider that case “creating”. It is creating in the same sense as describing to your friend what you want and them trying to draw what you describe. There’s an output that resembles your input description, which might be enough for some?

Like, I get that there’s people who are mocking AI for the wrong reasons, and they’re silly for that, but there are very real reasons to dislike AI in many applications.

Would chatgpt be able to do this if their dataset had consisted only of ethically obtained data where the authors had provided consent? My money is on no, at least not yet. The technology is in its infancy and has powerful potential, but is having its progress boosted through highly unethical means.

I’m so very much for the concept of AI, its a monumental technology space at its core. But it needs to be done right, and I fear that it never will be, and we will have to live with the sins of the existing models forever. I hope I will be wrong.

If we can reach a future where models are trained on entirely consensual data and the environmental impact of their training and usage isn’t as dire, I’d be so happy.

Which search llm is filtering out any of the content farm and seo stuff?

Yeah, so you end up with a fraction of a fraction of the work time going to actually doing the block chain transaction, and the vast majority going into the artificial difficulty

I always thought it would be ideal to do this to create a powerful distributed computing network that can both serve to process the transactions made with the coin and also to do something useful, like folding@home or seti@home or whatever. But apparently nope, GPU crossword puzzles that do nothing but use electricity to make heat (and, as a fraction of a fraction of the work, process a blockchain transaction) are the best they could think of.

There is not useful work being done. They may as well be crossword puzzles. Some coins do use the work to do useful things, but bitcoin does it as a way of “proving your work” to earn coin.

You dropped this \

And like, I understand the use of emojis in general, I’m no boomer, just using them in this way is so weird. Like this usage of emojis feels boomery.

Its like the difference between

My iphone died mid conversation 🫠

And

My iphone 🍎📱 died mid conversation

The latter fills me with rage, the former feels reasonable

Am I the only one who is physically repulsed by this use of emojis?

I mean on its own it doesn’t, much like 1 person being vaccinated. But each individual who does it will perhaps inspire more people to do it and so on and so on. If it were to take off it could have a measurable impact.

consider getting your own rack.

Working on it!

Technology Connections?

Edit: yep!

This is one of the most vile, inflammatory posts I’ve seen from Sunshine. I can’t bel-

Nah it’s all good its a funny meme

Yeah it doesn’t have nearly enough nazis to compare

xkcd 2501

Can’t wait for some “buy the dip” dickwads to catch this falling knife

As a straight man I also want to bottom Tesla

I need to read more carefully, otherwise I’ll be assuming people want to take some dead scientist dick

Trains rights!

Alternate transport option: Trans rigs!

I’m trans - the “still cis btw” was a little jokey joke