Ha! Nope, not buying it.

nasty license Ironic, considering that their work directly builds upon Stable Diffusion.

Funny you mention licenses, since stable diffusion and leading AI models were built on labor exploitation. When this issue is finally settled by law, history will not look back well on you.

So I’m not allowed to have the discussion I’m currently having

Doesn't seem to prevent you from doing it anyways. Does any license slow you down? Nope.

nor to include it in any Linux distro

Not sure that's true, but also unnecessary. Artists don't care about this or need it to be. I think it's a disengenous argument, made in the astronaut suit you wear on the high horse drawn from work you stole from other people.

This is not only an admission of failure but a roadmap for anybody who wants to work around Nightshade.

Sounds like an admission of success given that you have to step out of the shadows to tell artists on mastodon not to use it because, ahem, license issues?????????

No. Listen. The point is to alter the economics, to make training on image from the internet actively dangerous. It doesn't even take much. A small amount of internet data actively poisoned requires future models to use alignment to bypass it, increasing the marginal (thin) costs of training and cheating people out of their work.

Shame on you dude.

If you want to hurt the capitalists, consider exfiltrating weights directly, as was done with LLaMa, to ruin their moats.

Good luck on competing in the arms race to use other people's stuff.

@[email protected] can we ban the grifter?

Feel free to ask Michael in the comments of his blog, he frequently replies, helpfully, with references. I mean all science is tentative, so skepticism is healthy.

Fair!

That said, don't be a strange to family and friends about this kind of thing though. I've been surprised to find out people I knew were hiding their unemployment from me for months, which is totally fine and understandable -- they don't owe me anything -- but sometimes, faith in that people want to help each other with meaningful things when times are hard is one of those things worth testing.

Oof, that got real, and I'm sorry to hear. @[email protected] help keep this guy in the jank?

I use firefox on android and have no problems. Buy a better phone? :P

I think there is a nugget of truth here in so far as that you can't live life trying to make everyone happy, but also, you get what you shop for so, have fun with the shit heads.

For what it's worth then, I don't think we're in disagreement, so I just want to clarify a couple of things.

When I say open system economics, I mean from an ecological point of view, not just the pay dollars for product point of view. Strictly speaking, there is some theoritical price and a process, however gruesome, that could force a human into the embodiment of a bird. But from an ecosystems point of view, it begs the obvious question; why? Maybe there is an answer to why that would happen, but it's not a question of knowledge of a thing, or even the process of doing it, it's the economic question in the whole.

The same thing applies to human intelligence, however we plan to define it. Nature is already full of systems that have memory, that can abstract, reason, that can use tools, that are social, that are robust in the face of novel environments. We are unique but not due to any particular capability, we're unique because of the economics and our relationship with all the other things we depend upon. I think that's awesome!

I only made my comment to caution though, because yes, I do think that overall people still put humanity and our intelligence on a pedestal, and I think that plays to rationalist hands. I love being human and the human experience. I also love being alive, and part of nature, and the experience of the ecosystem as a whole. From that perspective, it would be hard for me to believe that any particulart part of human intelligence can't be reproduced with technology, because to me it's already abundant in nature. The question for me, and our ecosystem at large, is when it does occur,

what's the cost? What role, will it have? What regulations, does it warrant? What, other behaviors will it exhibit? And also, I'm ok not being in control of those answers. I can just live, in a certain degree of uncertainty.

Also meta but while I am big on slamming AI enshitification, I am still bullish on using machine learning tools to actually make products better. There are examples of this. Notice how artists react enthusiastically to the AI features of Procreate Dreams (workflow primarily built around human hand assisted by AI tools, ala what photoshop used to be) vs Midjourney (a slap in the face).

The future will involve more AI products. It's worthy to be skeptical. It's also worthy to vote with your money to send the signal: there is an alternative to enshitification.

Correct. My only ask for moderation for this instance is to keep the scale and tone under control, even if meant me being banned in the course of doing so. Your reasoningand approach is sound.

As long as it's fine if I occasionally x-post interesting things I find in either?

duh, duh duh, duh, duuuuuuuuuh, yup.

There's a difference between "can" and "cost". Code is syntactic and formal, true, but what about pseudo code that is perfectly intelligible by a human? There is, afterall, a difference between sharing "compiled" code that is meant to be fed directly into a computer and sharing "conceptual" code that is meant to be contextualized into knowledge. Afterall, isn't "code" just the formalization of language, with a different purpose and trade off?