Have you embraced AI as part of your life? Or are you still scared of it?

[ZEGA ZONICZEGA ZONIC's icon]

I'm getting tired of threads like this, but fine, let's go over the points and why discussion tends to be nothing more than a circlejerk.

• AI farms use untold amounts of energy, increase hardware costs as well as environmental and noise pollution.
• AI is a context and instruction sensitive collation and composition tool. In that capacity it is useful.
• Almost every new tool is liable lower human capacities in some way - tools are created to enable and facilitate, thus lowering personal effort thresholds, whether that is a good thing or not.
• Using AI in specific scenarios is useful. It can provide useful headway with parallel oversight.
• LLMs, machine vision and other uses are mostly technologies fed by big tech: Microsoft, Apple and Google especially - putting a real dent on the situation would mean completely leaving those ecosystems, something most can't do for various reasons.
• There is not enough support legislation to properly regulate AI use - shaming people for using them for non professional purposes will not change anything.
• The bubble is not far from bursting. A strong telltale sign is the deserved rejection of Windows 11 and its AI leaning, because Microsoft has to justify it's massive multi-billion dollar investment in the thing, but let's not ignore the likes of Apple Intelligence, which is, by design, even more pernicious in its permanence.

This is not aimed at anyone in particular, and anyone is free to agree or not, this is an open discussion, I'm just frankly getting tired of it.

I'm getting tired of these threads too.

 

[Clippy]

Should've never progressed beyond this

 

[dkpopman]

Peter Thiel is a misanthropic butt fuck with a load of money and is still never happy. He expects to be in charge of some apocalypse, or something with a bunker and wants slaves.

This mans name should be a vilified as the worst of the worst people alive today. He is a nasty, horrible man who wants to destroy society.

 

[BrawlMan]

This mans name should be a vilified as the worst of the worst people alive today. He is a nasty, horrible man who wants to destroy society.

Ever should know who this fucker is and why he should be despised.

You can add Oliver Mackenzie to the list as well.

Oliver Mackenzie (@oliemack)

People have lost sight of what an amazing accomplishment LLMs are. When I first used GPT-3, I had a moment of wonder: a computer is responding intelligently to natural language in natural language. And I was using the original Curie/Davinci model variants that weren’t even instruction tuned -...

xcancel.com

People have lost sight of what an amazing accomplishment LLMs are. When I first used GPT-3, I had a moment of wonder: a computer is responding intelligently to natural language in natural language.

And I was using the original Curie/Davinci model variants that weren’t even instruction tuned - they functioned primarily as autocomplete. These models fundamentally changed how I thought about technology from that point onwards.

If we keep up our guard and only look for failures, we can lose track of how amazing the technology is, and how striking its pace of improvement has been. Capabilities acceleration that would be stupefyingly fast in other fields is often brushed off.

Just this week a model that is arguably superintelligent at computer security research (and likely many other tasks) has been announced, a difficult-to-fathom development that many people are a bit dull to. We are currently possibly in something that looks like a singularity - AI models accelerating AI development - and it hasn't been remarked on widely outside of specialist press.

Have people lost their sense of how ridiculous this is? Or am I mistaken? It sometimes feels like in trying to slot LLMs in the same bucket as a crypto token or new phone, we dramatically undersell their significance. For good or for bad.

Dude has beyond lost it. Just another foolish old bitch who wants to force their false reality on everyone else.

 

[Leon]

Ever should know who this fucker is and why he should be despised.

You can add Oliver Mackenzie to the list as well.

Oliver Mackenzie (@oliemack)

People have lost sight of what an amazing accomplishment LLMs are. When I first used GPT-3, I had a moment of wonder: a computer is responding intelligently to natural language in natural language. And I was using the original Curie/Davinci model variants that weren’t even instruction tuned -...

xcancel.com

Dude has beyond lost it. Just another foolish old bitch who wants to force their false reality on everyone else.

The term "pride cometh before a fall" comes into play here.

I think we need to understand what conciousness is before we can even hope of making a actual AI myself, this stuff isn't really "intellegent" so much as it's a big search engine.

 

[Eric555]

Research shows that there's a 10-25% chance AI destroys humanity... and "we" roll the dice. Yes, I'm very scared.

 

[cornpops]

Research

A person has said that there's a 10-20% chance that AI destroys humanity, and within 30 years. Now, that person is Geoffrey Hinton, a Nobel laureate and one of the first notable back-propagationists, so this isn't coming from a nobody. But, the research is neither in nor out whether total human extinction as a consequence of the large language model will be a likely outcome because we really don't have much evidence available that even relates to that. There is plenty of opinion, though.

Not to say that the evidence isn't mounting. There is a pile of corpses that's getting bigger day by day that can be attributed to AI-specific sources, but it isn't yet on the level of mortality-due-to-motorists.

---

I think we need to understand what conciousness is before we can even hope of making a actual AI myself, this stuff isn't really "intellegent" so much as it's a big search engine.

Let's talk emulation for a second; this seems to be the right crowd. Emulation isn't replication but, if the products of emulation are accurate and presented in a convincing facade, it can be indistinguishable from replication.

If we can accept this premise in regards to video games, then we can take a stab and apply it generally. If the intent is to replicate the products of a human consciousness (or intelligence), we don't necessarily need to replicate the thing wholly, we just emulate it within a threshold of acceptable accuracy and present it beneath a convincing facade. One does not need to argue the Chinese Room to prove that the machine doesn't think, not like you or I theorize that we do, it doesn't, and it doesn't matter.

To that end, unless you subscribe to the belief that an essential non-material element distinguishes you from the materials that compose your physical being, you must concede that your own consciousness and intelligence are the byproducts of a physical machine -- one no different, in the cosmic we-are-all-made-of-stardust sense, than that of a physical silicon-backed electron machine that generates a similar product -- if, of course, the only parts of that product you are willing to acknowledge are, say, the words. But, in time, with the right attachments, it could offer a more complete package.

The point being: it isn't useful to make an essentialist it's-not-a-human, it's-not-intelligent attack against the AI evangelist. They don't really care, if anything they are energized by that fact. Rather, it's more important to acknowledge that everyone involved in the conversation is overselling the impressiveness of human action in the mix. Isn't it amazing that a LLM can do what a person can do? There's no way that an LLM will ever capture the nuance of a person. The discussion is an exercise in competitive autofellatio.

And don't you forget it.​

The essays you wrote in highschool have all been thrown out (if not, they will be), every conversation that you've had with your friends are (almost) all forgotten, that first-place ribbon you got at a track meet has been re-issued again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, that ticket you closed will never, ever be looked at again, and no matter how many bricks you lay something will come along and knock it over. Your contributions to the history of this planet are transient and slight, but the fact that you made them are still valuable to you and the people around you, if only for a time. Soon it will all be gone, and something else will happen instead.

Devalue your humanity, you were never going to live forever.

And that's the core of it, really. AI, or whatever we want to call it, is a product and a service that is pegged against the Human Utilidollar (a unit of utility that I invented for this discussion). To arrive at that destination, a billion temporary idiots contributed to its creation, more or less knowing what they were doing, and a few more billion will participate in the years to come. For them it was worth it because, fuck it, I got paid. Once the excitement curve flattens and the utility function takes over, the test will be whether or not it's worth paying billions more temporary idiots trillions of real dollars in order to reconstruct and upgrade every single data center every ten years in order to capitalize on the things that AI has already made worthless and trivial. If not, then not.

I mean, the only reason why we value other people is because they will do things that we don't want to do, and they set a price based on how unwilling they are to do it. The essential argument for AI is that it is a race to the bottom, and once it reaches the bottom it stops being worth it.

Probably.

People are speculating on the end of the end of the familiar human economy, because of AI. If that happens, your chief concern won't be whether or not you god laid off because your boss is subscribed to Claude. You'll be wondering whether or not the firebombing rioters will be walking down your street on their way to that data center that got built where your old elementary school used to be.

That, and whether they're still stocking food in grocery stores.

---

Spoiler: I get a little political here.

My particular concern with the AI buzz is that it is being pushed as the new global strategic resource. It isn't a strategic resource, let me get that straight. But there is a lot of effort being thrust towards painting it as such.

Oil is, and continues to be, the foundational bedrock of modern human civilization. Aside from its pedestrian use as a fuel for combustion engines and power plants, it produces the plastics that makes random bullshit trinkets affordable, and is the fertilizer that sustains the planet's nourishment. Oil is a strategic resource: any civilization deprived of access will decline and then fail. People will get very upset, and then they will die.

However, oil is not a resource that is wholly centralized. This makes it difficult to corner, particularly as the people who sit on it are not always friendly with the people who control it. However, the hardware that is used to realize AI is centralized -- the people who make it are, generally speaking, heavily indebted to the people who 'control it.'

This is a win-win:

• Opponents must play catch up and compete from a disadvantaged position.
• If opponents actually catch up, there are two responses:
  • Go to war (on your terms) to protect your advantage.
  • Rug pull. Quit the race once your opponent has exhausted themselves from catching up.
    
    
    Something like that.

 

[Sonic Boomer]

I'm a professional illustrator and do NOT use AI in my work. Tho due to severe physical exhaustion from drawing for years and years while at the same time being legally blind, I haven't been illustrating since 2024.

I find AI to be a downright fascinating tool, I absolutely adore AI and I can see it being very helpful in my line of work down the line, tho not quite just yet.

Up until flux, when I could generate SDXL locally I was very up to date on everything, sadly the increase in hardware prices locked me out of local generations sadly.

I do use KLING, ZImage and Flux online for fun tho but only make stuff for fun, nothing I'd moentize.

Unlike other artists tho, I'm by no means against AI, far from it. I love it.

 

[Tbest25 Tbest25]

I think ai, as any other technological advancement, is not bad on itself, but how it's used that is. Corporation all around the world using data from users without their consent to feed their data banks is despicable. Same thing for using ai as a substitute for actual human beings. Fortunately, ai is slowly losing it's strength. We'll see how it plays out in the future

 

[Sonic Boomer]

I think ai, as any other technological advancement, is not bad on itself, but how it's used that is. Corporation all around the world using data from users without their consent to feed their data banks is despicable. Same thing for using ai as a substitute for actual human beings. Fortunately, ai is slowly losing it's strength. We'll see how it plays out in the future

yes the corporate push and use of AI as well as the profiteers making insane amounts of money off of AI slop disgust me.
But AI in and of itself is a wonderful too.

I've discussed this at grat length on reddit.
so I will post my topics and discussions here

This was my reddit topic on the subject:

I'm Pro AI but against Corporate AI so I hope the AI bubble bursts so we can have open source, local AI

Because at this rate, they're effectively taking away open source/local AI by inflating GPU and RAM prices

Corporations have demonstrated just how rotten and disgusting they are in the past few months once again. Now they're obsessing over AI, shoving it into everything, they ruined the RAM and GPU market.
They want to take the personal out of Personal Computer so we can have Cloud only and as little control as possible. They're going to wrap this up nice and good in the "it's for the kids" excuse of course and millions of people will fall for it adding another subscription to their monthly budget, now for a cloud PC.

Of course they don't want every small advertising and design studio creating their own photos for posters, ads, catalogs and so on, they want you to buy stock photos, stock videos, they want you to buy porn, they want the money in their hands. The more freedom of creativity and ability to create previously expensive to obtain items people have, the less corporations will be making money.

So what are they going to do? Fear monger AI while benefiting from it

This is disgusting but AI isn't to blame for this.

Corpos don't want the consumer to own tools like AI so they will do two things:

1. Demonize AI and weaponize Anti AI people by fear mongering AI while at the same time going behind everyone's back and putting their Cloud Computing plan into motion while people and even politicians bicker over AI.
2. Lock consumers out of AI tools and control in general through exceptionally high prices by cornering the market and doing what they did with RAM and now high-end GPUs.

I don't like where AI pricing is going tho.

I'd rather spend a one time fee of $500-$1000 on local software and AI with zero restrictions like we did before Adobe CC became a thing than rent AI or GPUs and so forth.

Adobe literally tried to make CS6 illegal at one point due to their greed.

Local open source or not open source, as long as it's mine to use for life I'm good with that and as long as I can afford the hardware to run it like I used to be mere months ago.

 

[Eric555]

A person has said that there's a 10-20% chance that AI destroys humanity, and within 30 years. Now, that person is Geoffrey Hinton, a Nobel laureate and one of the first notable back-propagationists, so this isn't coming from a nobody. But, the research is neither in nor out whether total human extinction as a consequence of the large language model will be a likely outcome because we really don't have much evidence available that even relates to that. There is plenty of opinion, though.

Not to say that the evidence isn't mounting. There is a pile of corpses that's getting bigger day by day that can be attributed to AI-specific sources, but it isn't yet on the level of mortality-due-to-motorists.

---

It's not just one person. Besides that, I think we can assume that scientists and researchers base their A.I. warning comments, or what they think, on research.

Dario Amodei thinks there is a 25% chance AI will destroy the world. Previously he was at 10-20%.
With destroy the world he means p(doom) = probability of doom. Historically used to mean 'extinction or similarly bad outcome'.

Wiki quote: "In 2022, a survey of AI researchers with a 17% response rate found that the majority believed there is a 10 percent or greater chance that human inability to control AI will cause an existential catastrophe."

www.humanetech.com. "50% of AI researchers believe there's a 10% or greater chance that humans go extinct from our inability to control AI."

The World Unpacked (podcast), host Jon Bateman talks to Nate Soares (A.I. author and researcher) about his provocative argument that superintelligent AI could destroy all humans in our lifetimes—and how the U.S., China, and other countries should band together to stop it.
Nate Soares: "I think, there's a 70% chance we'll succeed and a 30% chance will die or 75% chance for succeed and 25% chance to die. That's insane numbers. If a bridge downtown had a 25% chance of collapsing, we wouldn't be like, well, think of the benefits of having the bridge open. We would be like shut it down, build a better bridge."

 

[Sweetmint]

With the world declining pretty fast or slow. I think robots/AI will probably either take over via mass surveillance or people will just accept it and not do anything until it's actually too late. But the thing is some robots are huge and dog bots are already owned by the military so is there any stopping this or fighting back at this point probably not unfortunately .

 

[cornpops]

@Eric555
I'll offer an olive branch: I wholly acknowledge the claim and the cacophony of voices that echo it. I did so in my earlier post, but perhaps without the emphasis that would have made it visible. I had other arguments to make, and I let myself run away with those.

That said, I will plant my foot on this point: on the relation of of human extinction to AI, all that exists in this matter is opinion. To claim that research (the scientific sort) has conclusively run the odds on this potentiality is either the result of a misunderstanding, or a mischaracterization. For sure, research has been done on gauging public and professional opinion on the matter, but that too is opinion.

Let me offer a comparable example, and one with nearly a century of tenure: The Doomsday Clock. Are you aware that it is 85 seconds to midnight? At all times we are less than two minutes away from total annihilation. Of course, this is a mischaracterization: the clock isn't meant to be taken literally. It's meant to make you pay attention, and it speaks in the language of urgency (because time is running out).

And yet, while this clock has been ticking down for 79 years there is still more time left.

Before I move onto a direct response, I want to offer what I think is a crystalization of my position: Don't Buy The Hype. If you feel that is agreeable, then we can settle on an accord and move along.

Spoiler

A summary: I don't believe that you did a deep enough analysis of your own citations. Of the two sources I dive into in depth, I find them to be gross mischaracterizations of the primary source. Further, I do not find the primary sources to be robust or rigorous in their findings or statements.

---

I think we can assume that scientists and researchers base their A.I. warning comments, or what they think, on research.

This is a common rationalization offered in the absence of certainty: we should trust the opinion of the expert because we presume that the expert's opinion is based on objective fact. In other terms, a "they did the work" fallacy.

First off, I agree: when we assume that there is a foundation to an authority-opinion, we assume that it is based on evidence -- but we do not know.

So, when "Dario Amodei thinks there is a 25% chance AI will destroy the world", we might assume that Dario is basing his opinion on perhaps something that he has published. Similarly, if we copy and paste a user's interpretation of Dario's statement verbatim from reddit and do not listen to to his actual words, we might assume that is what he actually said. I will offer an amatuer transcript:

Dude: You know you're playing with fire when the people building it have a score called the "P Doom" which is the percentage chance that this ends in disaster. What's your P Doom number?

Dario: Yeah, yeah, I really hate that term. It's, it's, it's, uh (overlapping dialogue) it's very, very -- I definitely think between the autonomous danger of the model and kind of ending up on the bad side of some national security tradeoffs and, uh, a kind of job thing that's, that's, uh you know, kind of goes in a very bad direction and I don't know, I'm relatively (an) optimist so I think there's a twenty five percent chance things go really, really badly and a seventy-five percent chance that things go really really well with not much, uh, not much space --

That statement presumes an inverse character to Amodei's intent, and ignores his followup statement -- which is crucial to understanding his intent. This is a mischaracterization, and is not a credit to your argument.

---

You quoted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artificial_intelligence

Wiki quote: "In 2022, a survey of AI researchers with a 17% response rate found that the majority believed there is a 10 percent or greater chance that human inability to control AI will cause an existential catastrophe."

www.humanetech.com. "50% of AI researchers believe there's a 10% or greater chance that humans go extinct from our inability to control AI."

Yes, I read that article too. That quote is lifted from a podcast, which itself discusses a 2022 study:
https://www.humanetech.com/podcast/the-ai-dilemma [Direct link to the mp3 resource]
https://aiimpacts.org/2022-expert-survey-on-progress-in-ai/ [The Study]

I will quote the study:

Population​

We contacted approximately 4271 researchers who published at the conferences NeurIPS or ICML in 2021. These people were selected by taking all of the authors at those conferences and randomly allocating them between this survey and a survey being run by others. We then contacted those whose email addresses we could find. We found email addresses in papers published at those conferences, in other public data, and in records from our previous survey and Zhang et al 2022. We received 738 responses, some partial, for a 17% response rate.

Questions​

The full list of survey questions is available below, as exported from the survey software. The export does not preserve pagination, or data about survey flow. Participants received randomized subsets of these questions, so the survey each person received was much shorter than that shown below.

I will isolate the important parts:

We contacted approximately 4271 researchers who published at the conferences NeurIPS or ICML in 2021.

We received 738 responses, some partial, for a 17% response rate.

Participants received randomized subsets of these questions

Existential risk​

In an above question, participants’ credence in “extremely bad” outcomes of HLMI have median 5% and mean 14%. To better clarify what participants mean by this, we also asked a subset of participants one of the following questions, which did not appear in the 2016 survey:

Extinction from human failure to control AI​

Participants were asked:
What probability do you put on human inability to control future advanced AI systems causing human extinction or similarly permanent and severe disempowerment of the human species?

Answers​

Median 10%.
This question is more specific and thus necessarily less probable than the previous question, but it was given a higher probability at the median. This could be due to noise (different random subsets of respondents received the questions, so there is no logical requirement that their answers cohere), or due to the representativeness heuristic.

Let us compare these metrics with the conclusion offered:

"50% of AI researchers believe there's a 10% or greater chance that humans go extinct from our inability to control AI."

This is a poorly constructed study whose conclusions on a single followup question (and they don't tell us how many of the 4,271 738 559 respondants got it) were distorted and amplified beyond sensibility. The whole "50% of AI researchers believe there's a 10% or greater chance that humans go extinct from our inability to control AI." headline was derived from the fact that the researchers did not report the raw numbers nor an average, but a median. A median is the positional middle-value in a set. If the responses presented were [1,1,1,1,10,100,100,100,100], the median would be 10.

Medians are often not usual statistics to report, except when your dataset is skewed by outliers. The people who performed this study lacked confidence in this particular finding, and yet it is the value that was parotted in that podcast.

This too is a mischaracterization and not a credit to your argument.

---

It's well after midnight where I am, and I am donating time that I should be using to sleep (and I am working tomorrow) to analyze your arguments for you. You cite another podcast which, relative to the other sources you cite, offers one unique point: The fate of the world should not be risked on a 25% probability of failure.

To that, I agree. However, and I offer this without discrete evidence: I don't think the 25%/75% distopia/utopia split is offered by anyone is intended to be a taken as a serious cite-me-in-policy-discussions statement. If it is, then I offer that meteorology -- a venerable science of the predictive modelling of weather patterns -- while often accurate, is rarely ever precise. Which is to say, the nutritional security of our species is regularly gambled on with similar odds, and we get along pretty well despite it.

 

[Sonic Boomer]

Here's pasting from another reddit topic I made about what I consider AI Art and what I consider visualization of an idea.

"I'm a professional illustrator this is my take: AI Art becomes art when it's more than just prompting, until then you're just the "idea guy" and an idea isn't art"

Let's see how we got to this point

AI is art if you:

- Draw your own compositions, set your own lighting and tone

- Create your own characters then render them out with the AI

- Create your own environments, perhaps draw the outlines, decide the colors, lighting, draw your own lighting and colors like what InvokeAI allows and so on

- Do your own finetuning/inpainting and so forth

For this topic I'm going to use a very simple concept and won't fine tune or spend too much time on the final AI render, my goal it to show you the following:

- we have full control of AI

- It can produce characters it is not trained on if guided properly

- your characters are still your own if you drew them first and the AI is merely tasked to render them in different styles

- your composition, choice of colors and so forth is still your own artistic choice if you yourself chose those colors and drew them

let's draw a simple quick character sketch, we want this guy rendered in 3d but don't want to go through the tedious process of 3d modeling, UV mapping and rigging.

Since we're doing this for a quick AI demonstration let's create a simple scene

So we can start rendering this out

since at the moment I only have KLING's unlimited O1 image available because I'm out of Nano Banana, let's try and turn this into a render with that

Now this step is probably unnecessary, but much like I used to do in SDXL I decided to separate the outlines from the base colors first

Since this is KLING and not Nano Banana it's going to probably not do things exactly as pictured, but we never know. I gave it a prompt, I didn't like the treets I made so I told it to make them fluffy and with round clusters of leaves

We got a bunch of 3d renders

eventually I got settled on this

Now, there's no further need to use AI, it's now time for me to bring the illustration to life manually

Now this is barebones
Something is still missing, I could further add wetness/sheen to the umbrlla, the boy's raincoat and boots and so forth, but for now we'll stop here.

This, albeit very basic is art

it's AI Art because it was art assisted by AI
but it's not the same as a prompt

if I just prompted for this, it would have just been a visualized idea

EDIT: so this is just my process
but people in the comments mention that if you put enough time into an AI image, which I understand as inpainting, fine tuning, adding details, fixing the composition, lighting and so on. Does it become art then? Well, is photo editing art? "the art of photo editing and color grading?" if so then yes, but if you accept the first image the AI renders and call that "my art", that I can't quite accept. I feel you need to put effort, to fine tune it, to make it your own manually before it goes from visualized idea to proper art. Not just picking one from a bunch of renders and calling it "my AI art"

yes art can evolve and be accidental, I myself don't think or plan much when illustrating but it's different when "someone else" or "your tool" draws your idea for you, that's not your art just yet.

---------------------

Let me give you a rundown of my creative process and why I disagree that your vision = your art in all cases.

I have a very specific visualization process, I have exceptionally vivid imagination and all it takes is for me to read the book or story I'm illustrating or text and I instantly see it as a cartoon/movie, complete with animation, voices, shots, angles and fully realized characters.

I've been actively illustrating for over 16-17 years now maybe 18 as a profession but before that I've been drawing as a hobby since 1.5/2 years old.

I don't do sketches, I don't do characters in different poses, I do none of that. I see the "movie" in my head and draw the paused scenes of said movie, that's all.

I work exclusively as a freelancer for projects where I am given maximum freedom with minimal meddling from the clients, so far in all my years as an illustrator that has been highly respected by almost all my clients.

Now since I'm a bit on the spectrum, what amplifies my vision even further is me getting up and spinning, I can spin without getting dizzy forever. I keep my eyes open and the blur of the spinning is my "screen" this is where I not only see but also experience my ideas in their full glory.

At this point all that's left is for me to just draw what I've seen, that's it. I don't design purposely, I don't think about tiny details as that exhausts me, I just see it in my head and draw it.

But if I were to tell somebody else what I see and expect them to draw, that would be our art at best and their visualization of my idea at worst. It would be a form of my vision but not my vision exactly.

My non AI Art:

 

[GuyZero32k4]

Currently, all I use it for is to make anime and video characters dance.

Said this in another thread so I'll say here again, I'd give a real shit if and when there's hologram waifus for the home like in Blade Runner 2049. I could see where the public would have something like that long before robot fem bots. The factor of cost and how quickly this Ai shit is going, and how we haven't seen tech be pushed as hard for new developments the last few years.

 

[BrawlMan]

 

[Sinsic30]

Yes, i use it daily. I'm not proud of it but it is what it is.

what do you use it for ? (^-^)

 

[Lee__Kanker]

I once saw a list of prompts for ai furry roleplay

I wish I can bang my head against the wall till I forget it

Aside from that I like it for translation and a better google search engine (it filters through all the garbage); I'm very impressed with how it translated king of the hill subs into italian, since it uses a lot of slang and specific figures of speech. Also translated my jap silent hill guides to the point I can follow it just fine, cant wait to see it improve

 

[FlyingToaster]

what do you use it for ? (^-^)

It basically replaced googling for me

 

[BrawlMan]

AAAAAAHHAAAAAHHGAAAHAAAA!!!!!!!!

https://twitter.com/x/status/2044071303968145806

 

[Necrodyte95's icon Necrodyte95 Necrodyte95]

I use Grok regularly.

 

[BrawlMan]

"faith-based AI Market"

 

[Leon]

"faith-based AI Market"

So i try to keep politics and religion out of my convos on here, but a growing fear among some people in the christian community is that "the beast" of the revelation is in fact a AGI overlord, since everything the beast is supposed to do a ai would mostly be able to do.

 

[BrawlMan]

So i try to keep politics and religion out of my convos on here, but a growing fear among some people in the christian community is that "the beast" of the revelation is in fact a AGI overlord, since everything the beast is supposed to do a ai would mostly be able to do.

Then they better learn to not bother giving money to these AI Corporate overlords and using religion as a means to an end and actually either don't believe in anything, sees non rich people, as insects, or all the above. if they are truly people of faith, then they should spot manipulation, when they see it and not let an AI fake dictate how they live, nor give these assholes any money at all.

 

[Zerpina]

I'm not taking the piss here, as it were.... but how is this the one AI thread on the forum that hasn't devolved into bitching, whining, fighting and moaning and not gotten locked?

I'm genuinely surprised, honestly.