I get that the article is a joke and being neither American nor British I don’t have a horse in this race...

Eh... no, this isn’t a mystery. Generative AI is not magic, it’s an area of research in computer science. These things aren’t a secret formula, this isn’t a comic book, the ways they work are outlined in available papers that you can go read if you’re into the field enough to understand them.

Yes, I am back to arguing about what things mean, in this discussion about what things mean. Silly me.

Ah, yes, the “many falsehoods” you haven’t identified or listed at any point and instead substituted with misquotes. I have been exposed.

I am constantly baffled when people keep doing quotes out of context or misquoting in threaded discussions. You do realize my original post still exists, right? I just don’t get it, I know what I wrote, you know what I wrote, nobody else is trudging through these walls of texts this deep below the line... so why the…

I mean, I guess this conversation does go much faster if you decide to hold both sides of it. Speaking of “strawman arguments”.

You went very far to reiterate your fallacy in more detail, but it remains a fallacy.

Ah, yes, jumping to conclusions without thinking things through, that staple of ethics.

I mean, you read what you wanna read, but I spent a good chunk of this thread talking about how our laws to regulate copyright are broken, how big platform owners share many of the challenges of this new application and how the whole thing needs to be regulated again from the ground up for the new realities.

So... you just repeated your point about “not trained to understand” with no changes. You can feel free to refer to my previous response, which applies just as well.

I am getting this out of the greys exclusively to serve as a sample of how this conversation should not go.

You are not paying attention to what I’m saying.

No, not semantic about it. Accurate. What is actually happening in the AI matters to whether you can conceptualize it one way or the other.

Nnnnope, that’s not what is happening here. That’s... a bit of a common misconception, I’m finding out, but it’s not accurate.

ML for coding is not initializing your variables or loading your data, it is literally creating entire blocks of code based on natural language descriptions of the end result. It’s not autofilling your commands, it is creating code from scratch by being told what the code should do.

I am gonna guess you’re neither a coder nor an illustrator, because assuming there is not learned technique in art is... actually quite insulting and assuming there’s no creativity to coding (or that it’s adding a number to another number) is also pretty bad.

No, it’s not a “terrible comparison”. Those aren’t fundamentally different skills. They are both creative, they can both be learnt, they are both subject to fundamentally similar regulation in terms of copyright and access and they are both often used together.

I genuinely think there’s a lot of unjustified fear among the legitimate critique in here. The whole “will the fact that machines can do this kill human jobs” thing has been a thread for two hundred years and every time the reality is that jobs just shift from one place to another.

I don’t really think that’s the case. Like 80% of that show is self-centered reflections on what it’s like to have to write a very popular animated sci-fi show for adults with a toxic fanbase that misunderstands its toxic lead. At this point the joke is how far up their own ass the fanbase can get while being actively…

Yeah, well, I refuse to let other idiots make me not enjoy the stuff I enjoy just because they don’t understand the most obvious parts of it. I was there when Fight Club hit, I have tons of practice.