Aevar Gudmundsson @creativeDecoDev

@jun_song my car also generates less value than I spend on it.. so does my dishwasher, so do my clothes... what are you getting at?

I realized something similar awhile ago with the rise of the robots and then a sudden surge in the rise of a side business in "dating robots" emerging a few months back, and in the midst of all the hate that was going on went "well, there are two types of people in the world I guess, those who fear being replaced by a robot in the dating scene and those who don't really worry that an inanimate object would be a better choice than them somehow", so I started proactively, non-dating wise, just in general inspired by this to start asking people irl to just flat out to please replace me with a robot. Self correcting thing really, anyone in my life who would prefer an inanimate machine over myself I clearly dont want in my life, sounds quite a toxic friend anyway, and those who then don't I just go awww, how cute, I'm that special to you. total win win for everyone included so Im going to keep doing it.

because of the joy of tinkering with things, which includes most of a.i. users as well, we all just love tinkering with things and the most recent thing to tinker with is a bunch of a.i.'s... its very fleeting btw, the masses find new things to tinker with every few years. it takes 1x interesting thing to show up on internet and now everyone is tinkering with that instead if history has shown anything it is that, once it stops being fun and turns into politics and stuff is usually the point where humans by large just go do other stuff instead, relatively abundant choice we have of how to spend time in our moden age. i dont think anyone is going back to writing code by hand but wether or not people will keep tinkering with a.i. as much as they have been in the last couple of years I honestly don't know, it would depend on wether or not 1x interesting thing shows up and becomes popular and isn't a.i.

just as a minor note into that, to be taken as observational value rather than some kind of a rule or objective fact, when i log into grok.com it says mostly stuff about truth first and transparency and really beautiful things, and then when logging into anthropic it says "for hackers".... one is an invite to construction the other is an invite to destruction. no wonder their userbase is mostly people using it for harm, it's literally on their front page and any notions of otherwise is just blatant misinformation, pretending to be doing anything other than that is a bit contradictory when the literal mission statement is an invite asking people to do harm with it... so the concerning question really is.. would you want to be the choice for that? "nr. 1 favorite a.i. used by the Boka Haram" kinda thing... I'm not sure how to feel about this...

pretty much the same, a.i. is an additive force not a raw resource, it's nice that it's there but as I have always said, in the greater dynamic between man and machine, one of these is clearly replacable and the other not. it's just the same as when the mobile phones showed up, its not like life ends without it, but it's nice to have. Humans will still human, a.i. or not.

@matthias_mrc fact, rather than hot take, hot take would be, something around less than 1% of a.i. users are business owners.

here you go, since you are passionate enough to spend a whole day refining the animation you may appreciate this: mixamo.com/#/ I'm not affilliated with them and that's not an a.i. thing, its the largest traditional game mocap library that is used in general, you can get incredibly good animations from it if you spend a little time figuring out how to get the cycles responding inside your game, incredible collection of actual mocap actors specifically parsed to be used in games and ads and so forth, big studio stuff with high end results. enjoy!

@Henryf1w depends on what you are coding, there is even argument towards phone development being better suited to do on a phone a.i. or not.

title: Sense-Maker Responsabilities: Act as a human being in a workplace trying to make sense of why half the people don't know what they are doing but are doing a lot of things and then try to explain the expenditure of all of it to the few who do but need to keep track of what is happening in general. Requirments: Be able to read and write and notably have a history of being able to communicate internal thoughts as well as expressions of others in a way that at least makes marginal coherency. It's a surprisingly hard role to fill with confidence in our modern age actually.

@Henryf1w Same really, I propose the initial schematic for this wonderful machine be some kind of a slot machine where we put in minutes one side and dollars come out the other side. The internal works of it to be discussed but Im pretty sure the core design of it is solid.

@DM_Arts_ yes

The only view that i have on this affair is wondering which one was a bigger paycheck, his salary at a job he didnt like apparently or the media circuit he is currently on. and wether or not we should consider to stop glorifying hate just in general, its coming to a point its losing meaning, "boy who cried wolf" and all that, next time someone tries to point out something that is then serious it just gets drowned in the ocean of attention seekers of the day. its not really the attention seekers fault, we are the ones who created an environment where we glorify shock value and its unfortunately a very common option for people to just give up at their jobs because it pays more and you get to be on television if you can go ooga-booga! and everyone gets startled. it feels like the equivilent of a fart joke in comedy, just a cheap jumpscare for attention. i second my view by offering the hypothesis that i still havent watched or read any of the news this latest boy crying wolf has been saying, too desensitised to it by now. who knows.. perhaps he is saying something in those news that we should be looking into but these people are always crying wolf so....

I made an infographic to illustrate a similar point recently. But it's really the paradoxial nature of the fact that the entire costumer base for a.i. appears to be constrained within that sliver while the narrative appears to be doing math evolved around global economies and percentages thereof. Back in reality then the paradox is hilarious if you think about it in the form that software developers technically are the only ones on that infographic that don't need a.i. because they are perfectly capable of doing this themselves anyway. The other 99.5% or "normies" as the kind internet citizen refers to them are the ones that have no idea how to make software so it would rather be them that need it I think 🤔

it sounds way more than it is, anyone who has experience co-ordinating enterprise companies with staff of over 10k knows how and where the limitations of trying to do that per "agent" actually is. take any trivial hollywood film or a standard AAA game production for example, not really noted as the greatest achievements of our times, just basic production cycles that require years and thousands of people across various countries, languages, environments, or skills to all solve a single problem. in general we perceive that to be rather rudimentary and self explanatory without most people raising a question about how on earth that even got done. coachella even manage thousands of "agents" mostly contractors that are showing up for work for the first time and no enterprise overhead to manage a hundred thousand people without incidents. its where that goes wrong however, at scale, where it becomes quite notable... it's not a technical thing at all, it's one of the most undervalued and rare skills in the world to actually know how to do to a point that it doesnt even enter the discussion, just how much and how many where included in actually getting that done, but is pretty standard and mundane once you get the hang of it.

good point, personally i think that stuff is just so that educators can trace wether or not students are handing in copy/paste a.i. things or actually did the research assignements and stuff like that, but only guessing. I just don't know how watermarking text would claim it, people say similar stuff all the time. will be very interesting if a human author tries raising this in a court case, which is bound to happen sooner or later. is phrasing a product that can be owned. some branding laws state so but the criteria to brand a phrase are insanely strict and are not allowed to be public domain common phrases... so where does "ownership" come into the discussion is my pondering, beyond just traceability for the forementioned case. like a legal case for a video that clones an intellectual property would be "hey, sorry, but i made this but you appear to be charging money for it" and that part is very much illegal in any and all cases, doesnt even require copyright, the moment transfer of funds takes place for another persons work, done. but if it would apply to words and sentences our ability to speak legally would diminsh quite rapidly. no strong feelings on this on my side, just a very interesting situation to think about as a rhetorical case. because if that is a the case then the upload timestamp is the proof of ownership, that takes place prior to the watermark, did the human show it to the a.i. or did the a.i. create it.

@moiiikaaa "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -Albert Einstein

@Shra_va_ni yes, its more about why... but very much yes, its a language model, inventing a new language would be one of the simplest things in all of its existence to do. but why....

always, its the only thing that teaches it affirmation on wether or not its doing a good job or not. i have found that if you dont the results and what it does becomes relatively arbitrary and it has no sense of right/wrong or a sense of direction. just very basic positive reinforcement, works for humans as well btw to avoid a lack of direction in life in general so i figured to see if the machine was respondant to the same, it is.

Nice one. I asked grok to make an infograph of time relative to number of humans, just a baseline test to see if it would produce a plotted graph, expecting a linear curve with time on the x axis, humans on the y axis, point a to point b. what it actually delivered i thought at first was grok just being creative and not actually using numbers but then i had a good look at the actual infographic and started wondering what it was it had just delivered as its summary infographic on time relative to humans.