Recent comments in /f/technology

shenrougu t1_jad1ukg wrote

Reply to comment by Wooden_Sherbert6884 in PC GPU Shipments Drop 35% Year-over-Year in Q4 2022: Report by Stiven_Crysis

Eh the exact same thing could have been said about the 10 series. 8 years later and the 1080 holds up really well.

No display port 2.1 and that they are stingy with VRAM doesn't mean the current gen is good long term tbh. I get you're saying the value proposition long term is good but I don't think so.

16

slantedangle t1_jacy34k wrote

Reply to comment by ixid in Students can quote ChatGPT in essays as long as they do not pass the work off as their own, international qualification body says by Parking_Attitude_519

>It's a pity schools can't teach people not to be bellends. You'd have benefited.

It's a pity schools don't teach people to just stop or say "I don't know", when they can't answer a question, instead of relying on ad hominems to end their conversations. You'd have benefitted.

2

gurenkagurenda t1_jacxqtz wrote

Reply to comment by MysteryInc152 in Students can quote ChatGPT in essays as long as they do not pass the work off as their own, international qualification body says by Parking_Attitude_519

Yes. A little while back, I had someone use a Computerphile video showing ChatGPT missing on college level physics questions as proof that ChatGPT is incapable of comprehension. The bar at this point has been set so high that apparently only a small minority of humans are capable of understanding.

1

Ronny_Jotten t1_jacx0a6 wrote

Reply to comment by ZhugeSimp in AI Art Just Got Slapped With A Crucial And Devasting Legal Blow by Skullpt-Art

No, because plagiarism is when you copy something verbatim, without creating your own authentic interpretation and expression. All art has elements of borrowing, but it's inventiveness, imagination, and some originality, that makes it art and not plagiarism.

The question is whether a machine is capable of inventiveness, imagination, originality, thinking, feeling, etc., or not, since those things have generally been acknowledged throughout history as being necessary elements of art. Wind and rain may carve patterns that are as beautiful as the most beautiful painting, but we don't call it art. Some people believe, or want to believe, that computers are capable of those things, and so we should call the patterns they produce, original, creative art. Others think that those things are not actually necessary, and we should call it art anyway. Personally, I think it's neither art nor plagiarism, but something else, that we don't have words for yet, and we're not sure how to deal with. It's a necessary discussion to work it out, but trying to fit dramatically new things into old categories is usually less successful than creating new categories.

0