something_else

One of the fundamental issues is that there are likely always going to be jobs that people don't want to do, that need to be done. E.g. sanitation, food production, and so on. Such a utopia couldn't exist without replacing these jobs almost completely with machinery and robotics.

If asking for proof of what you're saying is not substantiative, I don't know what is. You just don't have any proof, so you have to resort to deflective tactics. You also complained about ad hominem attacks against you above yet this is dangerously close to one.

Someone's going on an actualized.org MP3 binge then cos the site's been down most of the day lol

Don't live in Amsterdam unfortunately, but enjoy the readily available shrooms on every corner

Honestly, don't learn it if you don't have to. A lot of the hardcore pickup terminology is designed for guys who are really lacking socially, and it's a little bit culty. Learning most of the terminology will hinder you if you are already reasonably successful in dating. At that point it's more about learning how to meet more girls, or girls that are more compatible with you.

@Heart of Space At the end of the day the burden of proof is on you, and you haven't really provided anything substantial.

@Danioover9000 In this case the technical understanding is important to a degree. His critique was largely based around the idea that the AI is just copying shapes from source images which is pretty much just wrong and very much an oversimplification.

I'm assuming this is directed at me. I read it, but you grossly oversimplified how AI art models work and that was what I felt like I wanted to respond to the most. Your main point was that AI art can't generate anything new, it can only compose existing styles. But like 99%+ of human art ever created is just composing various existing ideas/styles/objects as well. And most of that doesn't require the artist to cite every experience they had in their life that lead them to produce a certain piece of art. That was my initial point. 'Adding your own twist' to a piece of art is really just you combining multiple experiences you have had in your life into a piece of artwork which is exactly what an AI art model is doing too. Your mind is just exponentially better at this right now so it feels like something different to you.

Yes but you can only do so much with cosmetics like makeup and they are temporary. Even if you manage to make yourself more attractive for one night, if the guy sticks around you're going to have to reveal your natural self at some point. So it's a very superficial form of increasing intrinsic value.

Unattractive women have little intrinsic value, and it's very hard for them to change that. At least as a guy you have some element of control over your value.

This just sounds like bro science This could easily just be your own bias against women who have had more partners making your sex with those women worse. In fact, that seems far more likely to me.

If humans are contributing that much extra divine and spiritual truths through their art, then you have no reason to be scared of AI art. The spiritual and divine truths could be expressed through AI assisted art just as much as they could through hand drawn. Most of those artists are not doing it for the money anyway, they're doing it because they enjoy it. And they'll do it whether AI art exists or not. Maybe they'll even use AI to assist them.

I also know software engineers with 10yrs experience who are terrible software engineers. But I'd still go with them over someone with 0yrs experience.

Ehm, sort of. This is a huge simplification. The AI isn't just copying shapes from source material. Neural networks are hierarchal and learn relationships all the way from individual pixels, to lines, to colours, to basic shapes, to complex shapes, and to entire objects and styles. Each layer of the model works at different levels of abstraction, quite similar to how your neurology works. My profile picture is some AI art actually, and it's a good example. I generated it years and years ago using a deep dream model. On each zoom, it passes the image through deeper and deeper (more and more abstract) layers in the network to generate more abstract imagery. I had to crop and jump frames to fit it under the limit for the site so you miss a lot of the detail. But here's the full thing. You can see how it has learnt representations of things at different levels of abstraction and is not just copying directly from source. And diffusion models are learning to convert random noise + text prompts into structured images, which means the process is so chaotic and unpredictable that you will get unique results that are composed of lots of distinct patterns of art that the model has learnt. Essentially the model is learning abstract representations/patterns of art which it can mix and match, it's not just learning how to copy shapes. It's exactly what your brain does. Your brain is an abstraction machine, just like a neural network. Your brain is just far more powerful at abstraction and can source experience from more places at the moment. It understands composition, anatomy and object relations, just not as well as a human does. Really, the fundamental difference is that a human can integrate emotion and a wider range of experience into the art, which obviously the machine cannot do yet. But the fundamental issue I was talking about was that of citing, credit and copyright. You as a human have looked at tons of art throughout your life and had tons of unique experiences that influence your art, yet you are not required to cite every single piece of that when you produce a new piece of art. Why should it be different when an AI does it?

Exactly. If you feel like you can compete with her previous partners you have nothing to worry about. It’s pretty much pure insecurity

Are you stealing copyrighted art if you let it inspire future art that you as a human create? Should you compensate every artist who’s art you ever looked at because it has influenced your brain and impacted future art that you create? Because that’s kind of what’s happening with AI art models Something to think about

This is what I’m worried about. I think I’ll need to judge while I’m out there

I’m planning a trek later this year. It’s the West Highland Way in Scotland if any of you happen to know of it. It’s a 5-6 day trek and I’ll be wild camping on my own for a lot of it. So out in nature in the middle of nowhere, it’s not peak season so there are unlikely to be as many other people camping. I’ll be able to find quiet out of the way places to camp. One thing that occurred to me was that this could be a really good opportunity to take some acid out in the wilderness. But, is it a good idea? I don’t think I’d take a lot. Maybe 100ug. It would be on my own at night after a day of walking. Ideally on a night with good weather. My biggest concern would be that if the weather turns and it becomes stormy and rainy (it’s Scotland after all) then that could be absolutely terrifying on acid alone in a tent in the middle of nowhere. It’s also likely to be quiet cold. Maybe 5-8C average, lows of 2C But I feel like if the weather was good it could be a truly brilliant experience Anyone got any experience or thoughts on this idea?

Depends on the club mate

*DOOM music starts playing*

Gonna need some links there mate Shouldn’t be a problem since your opinion is of course based on ‘endless’ metrics and statistics

It depends on context, yea. But in any casual or day-to-day context it’s essentially a dead word. Especially if you’re under like 30. It’s the equivalent of using gay to mean happy in the 21st century. It just sounds out of place in most contexts and people will look at you funny In more formal contexts or scientific context it’s obviously fine

@Ulax If you go about calling girls females they will look at you like a creep and make a lot of assumptions about you that aren’t beneficial to you. It isn’t just my experience. You’re welcome to go and test that out for yourself A lot of incels exclusively refer to women as females and femoids and the like which has helped it develop a reputation as a somewhat red-flag speech pattern

There are contexts where it's alright, but this isn't really one of them. Most of the time it just sounds too formal, impersonal and objectifying. When used in day-to-day life it has this connotation of women being foreign and alien, at least in Western countries.

There's a tendency for each side of the political spectrum to immediately label others as the opposing side if they disagree on even just a few issues. The middle ground is something like everyone getting their basic survival needs met whilst those who want to get the most out of life are rewarded for their efforts. But if you believe this, or have any other kind of balanced perspective, you could often find yourself being labelled right wing by left wingers and left wing by right wingers. It's one of the reasons that left/ring wing labels are a bit limited. It's too black and white.