I think the novelty alone might clinch it even if it kinda sucks tho

Can you imagine how wealthy someone would get if they created an AI author that makes a themed series of books while imitating a certain human persona and maintaining a social media presence?

For example Stable Diffusion is based on the LAION datasets which include billions of images scraped from the internet. So Phillipino culture is likely underrepresented on the general internet and the models don't have a good representation of them.

People take the trained models and add stuff that wasn't in the training set, e.g. you can train on images of 1600s philippines to get what you want that is currently missing.

Have a look here for some custom models, people have added styles, concepts, people etc: https://civitai.com/, you could easily make one that does historical periods from all over the world. I'm sure people would love it.

After messing with it, my impression was it does feels far off, but it may honestly just be 1 or 2 more orders of magnitude away for computing power and it could happen fast. At the end of the day, I was extremely impressed.

I don’t think it’s unrealistic to imagine AI becoming 100x more powerful than today, more a question of when not if. Just my opinion!

It's a joke though, not meant to be believed. It even says its fake right in the post. If someone reads that and actually believes it, let's say it'll be tough to educate them.

noise! we start from noise, use ai to recognize the few pixels match the things we want, use ai to denoise, remove the pixels not we want, each step find few pixels, loop 50 time and more, the image come out.

Some companies scrape (or download) the internet which conpanies or people can download and use.

Oh, and some companies tinker and censor their A.I.. Oh, and ChatGPT is just predicting what will come next in a conversation using their Language Model and math, that's why I call it and current A.I. a glorifed calcuator.

Computers (even the brain) take a lot of energy, you'd have eat a lot more food to run your upgraded brain

Also Facebook (or whatever version of it will exist then) will just use it sell ads straight into your consciousness

Where does the AI get their sources from? Is it from a collection of images on the internet? Because its a very biased AI. I keep prompting it to show a detailed national attire of the 1600s philippines. It never was accurate. I used the Philippines because its dress is a combiantion of spanish and southeast asian. And it never gets it right, either the dress looks mexican, european or asian- never filipino which is a combination of all 3.

Go is solvable algorithmically.

Creating characters, plots and themes isn't. This will never happen.

This is crap by high school standards, let alone college.

What have you written?

Realism

Good for him

I am confident I know what the numerous studies all said. I don't and you don't have sufficient evidence to disprove them or to prove the null hypothesis. (That intelligence isn't heritable)

>I don't care enough about the subject to know how much was correct and embarrassing vs unscientific.

Yeah, no fucking shit. Yet you still spout it with supreme confidence and claim that I'm the one who's incorrect. Go figure...

I for one don't think we should put so much value on intelligence. Maybe even health. There's no reason for humans to try to play God. It's not like we did such a good job on Earth. Correlation is not causation. So humans have more intelligence than chimpanzees. This might be explained by the difference in DNA. So do we really need to tweak this little piece of DNA? Is that what makes us intelligent? What if by increasing intelligence, we introduce bugs in our genetics? I have read Nick Bostrom's books. Some of his ideas make sense. But he obviously likes exaggerating and getting attention. So this email doesn't surprise me. We should beware false prophets who tap into our desires for a better world. So easy for them to introduce counterfactuals when they do that.

"I hope you all suck a giant donkey dick, then choke on the warm, thick load as it oozes down your throats"

furries: Hot

But seriously move on

I don't care enough about the subject to know how much was correct and embarrassing vs unscientific. I was explaining that the modern version of it - often pushed by old white scientists - usually finds Asians the smartest and women more intelligent on average but with a tighter distribution. (This got the president of Harvard cancelled for mentioning this knowledge aloud). This makes your understanding of it incorrect.

You can disagree all you want. It just makes you wrong and ignorant.You could read about it. Who came up with it. What the actual definition of the word is, etc. if you want to be less wrong and less ignorant. But making up your own definition and history is wrong and dumb and ignorant.

Why the fuck would you choose to redefine the term Eugenics to something that has no relevance to what it meant to the creator of the term or the historical use of the term or the dictionary definition of the term?

You're going way out of your way to appologize for Bostrom being an idiot.

Should we "redefine" Rapist to mean "a unicorn that dances on rainbows"? WHY?

No, idiot. He doubled down on it 7 days ago.

Fuck you, mods. I hope you all suck a giant donkey dick, then choke on the warm, thick load as it oozes down your throats.

You're a bunch of fucking cowards.

I don't have the energy to even respond to your bullshit parade of long debunked junk "science". You so confidently proclaim, with zero evidence, a littany of ignorant "facts".

You want to see a magic trick?

I can tell the future!

You're going to produce some "scientific" evidence for your racist bullshit that was rejected from publications NOT because it was riddled with flaws but because the powers that be don't want to acknowledge that melanin makes people dumb. Those papers are going to rely on a metric called "heritance" which you're going to conflate with "genetics" even though wealth has a high "heritance" measure and nobody has been able to find the gene that makes money shoot out of peoples' buttholes!

How did I do?

Meh I disagree. Eugenics was always about improving/enhancing the human physical body through crazy stuff like breeding only certain people. This was only because they didn't have the technology that we have today. Not to mention the obsession with nationalism. But we don't live in that place anymore which is why the definition needs updating, because we live in different times.

There is no reason why words cannot be redefined, we do it all the time. Troll, catfish, cloud, tablet, cougar. All these words have been redefined in the last few years, what's the difference?

Maybe we could say there is eugenics and there is forced eugenics. See what adding an extra word can do, amazing right?

But hey you seem to have taken a pretty stubborn position on this so I have no interest in trying to convince you there is nothing wrong with eugenics anymore.

At age 22? In 1995? Yeah whatever. I don't care and neither should you.

Jesus christ. There's a line between keeping your children from dying and dictating the color of their skin. Somewhere in the middle there is complicated ground where the answer isn't so clear if something is for the good of a child or eugenics and that definitely deserves discussion, but it's not this bullshit of:

>Hurr! durr! Transhumanism = Eugenics! Hurr! Durr!

That everyone in this post is replying to me with like a bunch of lobotomized dipshits.

The problem is: The mods seem to think burying discussion about the problems of eugenics is a good idea and Nick Bostrom seems to think the main problem is that its frowned upon in academia when you act like a huge bigot, use racial slurs, and spout debunked Nazi "science".

Like, yeah Nick, I'm sure we'd be making way more progress in the field if we just let a bunch of racist trolls publish their "work". That must really be the biggest problem facing the field. \s