[Burichan] [Futaba] [Nice] [Pony]  -  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]
Why are eleven paragraphs of bacon metaphor even necessary to explain one's sexuality.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [Last 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 28651)
Message
File []
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: DAT, GIF, JPG, MP3, MP4, PNG, SWF, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 12500 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 4664 unique user posts. View catalog

File 150526466821.png - (88.12KB , 500x500 , chei no.png )
28651 No. 28651 ID: c9f250

BRING ALL YOUR BIG DUMB ARGUMENTS HERE

Specifically, any argument that disrupts a thread enough will be removed from that thread. And put here for lack of a better alternative.
68 posts omitted. Last 50 shown. Expand all images
>>
No. 28730 ID: ed67d9

>>28729
What? Did you see what I actually said?

>>/quest/829901

It's not at all what you're insinuating.
>>
No. 28731 ID: 3ce125

>>28727
I think the implication was that your response in questdis was uh... emotional. Which it was.
>>
No. 28732 ID: 41c9bc

>>28726
You believe that my approach to character development is mediocre, but it is also thus far a statistically inadequate sample size. It is being taken into account, but the opinion of two to three people is not something to base my life and beliefs around on a dime. That is simply being a doormat.

>I hate false philosophy.
Why?
>>
No. 28733 ID: 760205

>>28726
I agree. Rather than address things, you doubled down: claiming that it was your right to be an asshole because you've been here longer. For someone who's attempting to look at things with a cold clinical eye you rely on a lot of logical fallacies and spent a great deal of effort to tell a quest author how their character how they are allowed to let their character feel.
approaching things from an emotionally detached standpoint doesn't make for a good argument when you still are unable to acknowledge the other persons point of view. Having an emotional reaction doesn't make someone weak.
>>
No. 28734 ID: 760205

Let me put it another way: in a debate the real goal isnt to be right, its to communicate your point of view to someone else. Emotions are an effective tool for doing so. Once someone sees your point of view they're more inclined to understand your overall meaning. Learning to empathize with another persons point of view goes a long way towards dealing with that anger. Just relying on clinical logic, particularly faulty logic at that, make you an asshole and you've been here long enough to know the rules

Also do some research on free speech before using it as a defense on the internet. You're operating on a privately run website and are subject to thier terms if service. Believe it or not this is true for 4chan as well. Its within thier free speech rights to remove your comments or deny you access based off their code of conduct. Legally, All free speech means is you cant be arrested for saying things. Using like some kind of "get out of asshole jail" card is just embarrassing. You're still responsible for what you say, claiming otherwise makes your argument sound childish
>>
No. 28735 ID: 41c9bc

>>28733
>claiming that it was your right to be an asshole because you've been here longer
False. I explained my origins under the belief that it would help Ratie to understand my perspective better.

>spent a great deal of effort to tell a quest author how their character how they are allowed to let their character feel
The quest author and other suggesters tried to tell me how I'm allowed to feel, what I'm allowed to say, and put forth misinterpretations about how I think. Of course I pushed back.

>approaching things from an emotionally detached standpoint doesn't make for a good argument when you still are unable to acknowledge the other persons point of view
If the other person never explains their point of view and why they view things that way, how can I interpret and acknowledge it? You can look at a brick wall, and know what the exterior of the brick wall looks like, but you don't know what's on the other side if there's no window.

>Having an emotional reaction doesn't make someone weak
I have very strong emotional reactions, but I've had to learn to control them. I strive to distance myself to keep me functional in day to day life. And I don't like to lose, so a failure to maintain that healthy distance leads to a feedback loop of vitriol being directed at vitriol being directed at failure.

It's possible that in dealing with Aubrey, I let myself slip a little too far into the persona of the character I was trying to portray. This resulted in cracks in that foundation of stoicism and ultimately a collapse of control.
>>
No. 28736 ID: 41c9bc

>>28734
>in a debate the real goal isnt to be right, its to communicate your point of view to someone else
You are fundamentally correct, yes, but I prefer not to let people keep running on false information. Examples being >>28670 and >>28706 which were at their core based on 'facts' that didn't exist. I did not tell Aubrey to kill herself, nor did Aubrey ask us for help.

Essentially, they were accusing me based on things that never actually happened.

>Emotions are an effective tool for doing so. Once someone sees your point of view they're more inclined to understand your overall meaning.
But if YOU let yourself see what THEY are saying through an emotional lens, you will always color it with your own emotions. You will never understand the other person. Raptie believed that what I said came from a place of malice, and that malice was all she was able to see.

>Learning to empathize with another persons point of view goes a long way towards dealing with that anger
The two parties need to actually engage in dialogue for that to happen. I was hoping this discussion around Laertes would continue, because that seemed to be what was happening.

>Also do some research on free speech before using it as a defense on the internet
It's not a defense, it's what I believe in, and knowing what I believe in is important when understanding where the differences in our logic lie.

>You're still responsible for what you say, claiming otherwise makes your argument sound childish
I just didn't believe that what I said meant what other people thought it meant. I understood what other people saw, but it didn't seem like they really understood what I was saying, and in communication that's a problem.
>>
No. 28737 ID: 2870fe

>>28735
>The quest author and other suggesters tried to tell me how I'm allowed to feel.
Nope. If you said, "this thing that happened made me feel this way", everything would be fine. You're free to feel however you want.
But what you actually said was, "the character is this and that because this and that happened.", and this is not ok.

This is called projecting. And what you're doing is, you're projecting your feelings onto the character. This is no longer "your right" and it's entirely at the discretion of the author if she or the character will accept this. In this case, she did not.

You say that you control your emotions. I say you're far from it heh.
>>
No. 28738 ID: 41c9bc

>>28737
Several people tried to tell me that I was feeling guilt wrong, and that it's not supposed to hurt when you feel guilty.
>>
No. 28739 ID: ed67d9

>>28738
Question:

On a scale from 1 (agree very little) to 7 (agree a whole lot), to what extent do you agree with this statement: "I am a narcissist." (Note: The word "narcissist" means egotistical, self-focused, and vain.)
>>
No. 28740 ID: 3ce125

>>28739
>from 1 to 7
Excuse me do you have a problem with the number 10
>>
No. 28741 ID: 41c9bc

>>28739
Probably a 2 at most. I'm rather irrelevant to the world as a whole, and under no delusions that it revolves around me. If I died tomorrow, friends and family would be affected, but the world at large wouldn't really change because of it.

I do have OCD, but it's minor. I've seen people who have to slam the door seven times before they can take a dump. I had a few similar compulsions when I was younger, but I kicked them years ago. Though my need to point out when people are incorrect about something is likely due to that quality.
>>
No. 28753 ID: 9876c4

Could the latent ability of furries to create drama from nothingness be used as an energy source? What sort of apparatus would be needed to collect the drama?

Scientific curiosity only, of course.
>>
No. 28754 ID: 41c9bc

>>28753
Whatever they use to make power from the kinetic energy of those hamster wheel generators, take it and apply it to keyboards so that every keystroke helps power your computer. Then every time somebody has a big internet argument, it will save a minute bit of power.
>>
No. 28755 ID: ee43ea

Allow me to open the pleasant and polite discussion on the subject of Coxwette, its fans, and its characters.

ahem

Julia is a terrible person, an abusive waifu, and needs to be gotten rid of as soon as possible.
>>
No. 28756 ID: 681713

>>28755
I mean, I agree, but RML seems to like her, and naileD is naileD, so she's sticking around regardless of what the players want, it seems. QM fiat.
>>
No. 28757 ID: d4516a

>>28755
>>28756
Outside of a sudden reverend attack, I don't really see a way for just getting rid of her under these circumstances anyway. Not much fiat involved.

Also, the one time RML commented on Julia, she seemed pretty neutral about her.
>>
No. 28758 ID: 681713
28758

>>28757
For the removal of Julia, it's mostly about people not wanting to risk her recklessness and irregular behavior along with her abrasive personality for people whom we've already come to know and appreciate. There's really not a whole lot more to it than that, and frankly I believe it's a perfectly fine justification as far as player behavior goes.

As for saying RML likes her, it's more an 'actions are louder than words' interpretation, in my book, as well as a few snippets of things I've seen in the IRC. RML appears determined to force (and I don't use that harshly negatively, I just can't think of a better word) Julia onto the players and make us deal with her. In video game terms, she would be an invulnerable/plot critcal NPC kinda like in Elder Scrolls, where killing her would break the story path that RML has in mind, so she just refuses to allow it. She's taken command of Chuck's actions away from the players before, so its not like I'm particularly offended, I'm just looking at it or at least trying to look at it alll from a distance.

RML's quest is one of the more directed Quests that I've played, where it's very clear that QM has a very specific story in mind, and it will be executed regardless of player input.

In a general way, it doesn't appear to be a matter of 'Okay, this is the base setting, these things will happen and the player makes the story by responding to them however they like.' As in most quests. Coxwette is more 'Okay, this is the story that will happen, and this is how the character will respond. What the player does is simply modify how effectively or not they respond to it.'

Now, that may not necessarily be accurate as to RML is trying to do, but it certainly looks that way, which I would say is more important. This causes conflict to arrive, especially in this case where basically the story is going in a direction a large number of the players really really really don't want it to go. Death of the Author, as much as I honestly loathe the concept, is very much in play here, I would guess.

At this point, I would personally recommend that if she's hell-bent on keeping Julia around, then she really honestly should just make anything involving Julia a cutscene that cannot be voted on in any way whatsoever. Like, seriously, just fast-forward literally everything until Julia has exited the scene. Her presence has basically shattered the playerbase into pieces. We had disagreements and arguements before, but never anything so vicious or so lasting before she came along.

This was a long and rambling and I'm sorry. I tried to remain polite.
>>
No. 28759 ID: d4516a

>>28758
>I tried to remain polite.
From what I've understood of this thread, you really wouldn't have needed to.

I'm not really sure how much of railroading there's involved in here, anyway: any possible way to remove Julia from the story - kick her out, kill her, etc. - seems to be the sort that even those that don't like her would rather not go for, and if we did, it'd break the story to even smaller pieces for everyone involved. Railroading or not, we're pretty much stuck with her.
>>
No. 28760 ID: 681713

>>28759
Might not have needed to, but I wanted to.

And most people who wanted to get her out of the story simply wanted to leave her be and let nature take its course, whatever that might end up manifesting as. When it appeared she was forcing herself on us, then people voted to try and punch her to perhaps either knock her out so we can run, or maybe influence her to run away.

Incidentally, I would consider this to be railroading, personally, even if it's to avoid an obvious bad ending. The fact that despite all the players ideas for getting rid of her, she's staying under QM orders means that she's plot relevant and has a reason for being- and I think most players realize that, but dismiss it just because her personality is just that bad. But, as I said earlier, the entire Quest is more directed than most- RML has a particular story she wants to tell come hell or high water, and we don't really have control of the main story path, just how well prepared we arrive to the key story points. Julia is apparently one of those key story points. So like you said, we're stuck with her.
>>
No. 28761 ID: 2120ee

>>28760
That's dumb. Your argument is that because the players don't want to do something, they're being railroaded.

The only thing RML vetoed was uncharacteristic, and frankly unjustified, violence on the part of Chuck.

Past that's, it's all the majority of players not wishing to pursue courses of action. Marginalizing or abandoning Julia is eminently achievable; the constraints on the ease with which we could achieve that were all consequences of our decisions. Being trapped in the warehouse with additional people we did not want to abandon was a consequence of our decisions. Conceivably, we could have prevented the well from being sealed had we wished to invest in doing so. Options existed, paths not travelled, etc, etc.

You're basically arguing that because RML does not alter game world realities in order to facilitate our desires (that do not even have consistent majority support), that she is railroading. It's absurd and childish.
>>
No. 28762 ID: 681713

>>28761
>The only thing RML vetoed was uncharacteristic, and frankly unjustified, violence on the part of Chuck. 

I mean, I agree with that and don't have a problem with it. It makes sense.

>Past that's, it's all the majority of players not wishing to pursue courses of action. Marginalizing or abandoning Julia is eminently achievable; the constraints on the ease with which we could achieve that were all consequences of our decisions. 

I'm not so certain if I agree with the entirety of it given end results, but I can see the logic behind the argument.

>You're basically arguing that because RML does not alter game world realities in order to facilitate our desires (that do not even have consistent majority support), that she is railroading. 

This, I didn't really mean to come off as it did apparently. What I've stated wasn't in Anger, it was more just an observation of her particular QMing style, which I personally believe is just as valid as any other. The point I was trying to make is that her style is different than the norm, which generally, yes, is a bit more flexible in regards to how the world behaves vis-a-vie player desires. This difference is causing a bit of cognitive dissonance in how players approach problems and generally I believe to be the source of all this drama. Basically she's not QMing how they expect, so people are getting mad and it can be perceived as railroading. Again though, I don't think her style is bad. It's just different. Different doesn't automatically equal bad. Personally, I'm mostly indifferent to the whole thing.

>It's absurd and childish.

That's just mean. Still I apologize if I came off like that.
>>
No. 28764 ID: be0718

>>28755
>Julia is a terrible person,
Sure.
>an abusive waifu,
Nah.
>and needs to be gotten rid of as soon as possible.
Nope.

The first point doesn't justify the third, and the second doesn't really use the term properly. Would her relationship with Chuck be abusive? We don't know. We haven't been privy to any of it. Has she abused people? Yes. However, that doesn't merit capital punishment.
If Chuck's going to be a hero, he doesn't get to be a hero selectively. He's going to save whoever he can, and 'can' is very different from 'wants'. And before anyone says 'but Julia can't be saved', as far as physically rescuing her goes she can.
>>
No. 28765 ID: ee43ea

>>28764
You misunderstand.

>If Chuck's going to be a hero, he doesn't get to be a hero selectively. He's going to save whoever he can, and 'can' is very different from 'wants'. And before anyone says 'but Julia can't be saved', as far as physically rescuing her goes she can.
I'm mostly talking about her being removed from the out-of-character standpoint: it's not Chuck that should get rid of her, but rather the plot. RML should pull some stops to make her go away regardless of Chuck's heroism, without him having to be stained by the ordeal. It doesn't look like this is going to be the case, unfortunately.

>the second doesn't really use the term properly
It does, actually. Look at the definition of "waifu": it's a virtual, non-real girl that one would love to date. In this case she's definitely naileD's "waifu" in the very correct use of the term, someone he'd love to fuck or at least see Chuck fuck.

Now look at how vehemently naileD's been defending her. Look at all these flimsy justifications to very real crimes and abuse. "She's not as bad as you think!", "I can change her", "I don't care if she's hurt people", and what have you - all very real excuses people in abusive relationships give.

Julia is such a terrible person that it's reaching out through the screen and into real life. She's bound naileD into her charm. She's hurting him.
>>
No. 28766 ID: be0718

>>28765
From an OOC standpoint, I still don't think Julia needs to be removed by the author. People just need to deal with characters they don't like in a more genteel fashion. (For example, ignoring them, or chastising them, or fucking both of their roommates while they watch. Purely hypothetical situations, of course.)
From a meta strategy standpoint, she also isn't unmanageable to the point where she is likely to get someone else killed.
Julia has done nothing to Delian, that is all self-inflicted. It's unfortunate but understandable if your perception of the character has been tainted by one of her proponents.
>>
No. 28767 ID: eda54c
File 150655027366.png - (0.99KB , 174x69 , The Hif Eyes.png )
28767

Hello
>>
No. 28772 ID: 681713

>>28771
I imagine he's exaggerating to make a point. That being that you come off willing to risk a lot of friends' safety and security just to get into Julia's pants. Which you kind of do. Come off that way I mean. Even if that's not your intention, that's how your phrasing and general extensive attempts at exclamation come off to several individuals. Myself included.
>>
No. 28773 ID: eda54c

I am now going to write a post about artistic integrity and how it WILL apply to YOUR SUCCESS as a creator.

First of all, it is very important for YOU to ever have a lasting impact, and for YOU to have fans who are truly LOYAL to your work. It is important for the way people view YOU, respect YOU, and expose themselves to YOUR work (whether or not YOU want to believe that doesn't matter, this concept has proven itself time and time again through history). Think of it like running a business, though of course this is a very different business than most other businesses and until YOUR BRAND is reaching MILLIONS (not 1 million, not 1.5 million, 2 million and beyond) YOU want to have GOOD BUSINESS. Why? BECAUSE GOOD BUSINESS BRINGS GOOD BUSINESS, and BAD BUSINESS BRINGS BAD BUSINESS. What kind of image do YOU want to have as a creator? Someone who appreciates everything from all of YOUR fans (minus hateful/racist/bigoted fans who will bring BAD BUSINESS) or someone who believes certain fans of YOUR work are less IMPORTANT than others? Do YOU want to be known as a creator who STANDS BY their work, or cowards away and tries to hide (some may say even CENSOR) when somebody points out certain aspects of YOUR work? What possible reason would ANY creator have in doing something as silencing CRITICISM, STORY IRRELEVANT FANART, or STORY RELEVANT FANART of a character or setting within their creation? That, is BAD BUSINESS. It MAKES YOU LOOK BAD. When you have a fanbase of a number that is under 5,000 (for example, this site has under 5,000 unique users). If story relevant fanart of something YOU made makes YOU SO UNCOMFORTABLE that YOU HAVE IT CENSORED, WHETHER OR NOT it is a LIGHT-HEARTED PARODY, NO MATTER THE THEMATIC CONTENT, YOU have BAD ARTISTIC INTEGRITY, which will GET YOU NOWHERE. Because guess what? The fact that YOU DID THAT will NEVER GO AWAY, because NOTHING GOES AWAY ON THE INTERNET.

How about if YOUR fans aren't satisfied with YOUR work? Do you ALTER it to fit THEIR vision, or do you keep going with the VISION that YOU had ORIGINALLY intended? Do YOUR fans PAY YOU for YOUR work AS YOU make it? Do YOUR fans pay for the work after it is COMPLETELY FINISHED? Do they pay for it AT ALL? If YOUR fans PAY YOU for your work AS YOU make it, then YES, BEND OVER BACKWARDS FOR THEM, as there is no difference between YOUR fans ACTIVELY COMMISSIONING YOU for YOUR work. If they PAY YOU after it is a finished product, then YES but WITH CAUTION so as to NOT stray TOO FAR from the ORIGINAL product. IF your fans DO NOT PAY YOU, then YOU have ZERO REASON to do ANYTHING ELSE from what YOU WANT TO DO, UNLESS YOU WANT INPUT from YOUR fans.
>>
No. 28774 ID: c31aac

>>28773
I, also, LOVE to CAPITALIZE completely random WORDS in my various SENTENCES!
IT REALLY HELPS with readability, and ALSO GIVES my writing a HUGE BOOST TO IT'S rhythm!
It's NOT super obnoxious AT ALL!
>>
No. 28775 ID: 2edbd7

All of you are unsaintly and have IQs of less than 500.
>>
No. 28776 ID: be0718

>>28774
You are just jealous that you lack Tom's MANLY PHYSIQUE.
>>
No. 28779 ID: eda54c

>>28773
tl;dr

Love YOUR fans,
TRUST the love YOUR fans have for YOUR work,
---and most importantly---
STAND BY YOUR work.

Love,


The Hif Man

P.S. -- This is not a passive aggressive critical jab at any one individual on this site, those who receive my criticism do so directly, whether in public or in private. People who actually have a true passion for the things that they do on this site I, despite popular belief, have a lot of respect for. I'd hate to see behavior detrimental to popularity that can be found and brought up at any time by anyone if they so choose cause anyone who doesn't want their work to wane into forgotten obscurity to do that. Unfortunately, most don't want to hear it, why I don't know nor do I really care which is why I wrote this piece, to expose behavior that can be detrimental to success anywhere in entertainment that I have seen only grow worse here as time has passed. Follow it, and make things better for yourself and everybody who follows your work or don't.
>>
No. 28782 ID: 395c02

You may resume your talks in the Coxwette discussion thread. It's not longer under heavy moderation. Enjoy~
>>
No. 28784 ID: ee43ea

>>28782
>Enjoy~
I would, but I'm still banned from there. naileD, who is at the very least as guilty at bringing the quest and the discussion down as I am, is not banned. He even posted a blatant bait picture that was already deleted once.

I am annoyed by this outrageous favoritism.
>>
No. 28785 ID: b9b4da

>>28782
BDAs should stay in the BDA thread anyway.
>>
No. 28787 ID: 395c02

>>28784
I apologize. Delian was able to placate me on IRC and avoid my wrath, which gave him an unfair advantage over those who don't use IRC.

In future, I'll try to be more careful about keeping things on equal ground.

Ban is removed.
>>
No. 28788 ID: be0718

>>28787
That's less of an unfair advantage and more of a proactive stance towards ban appeals. IRC is easy to access - web clients are everywhere, not to mention it's mentioned/linked on the front page, the FAQ and elsewhere. You don't have to join the conversation, but if you don't want to use it even for contacting mods then that's your loss.
>>
No. 28789 ID: ee43ea

>>28788
This was the first time I heard IRC was even an option.
>>
No. 28790 ID: 2474dd

>>28789
I'm not here to argue but if you leave the frames on, over to the left there's a heading of "IRC" with TGChan's IRC Chat address. Just saying for future reference.
>>
No. 28792 ID: eda54c

We didn't come here to rock
We only came to disappoint you
'Cause deep down in your cunt
That's exactly what you wanted us to do
You wanted us to lead you on
You wanted us to bum you out
So you could build us up
And you could knock us down

If that's what gets your dick hard
Telling people they're bad at making art

You wanted to feel cheated
I guess we gave you what you needed
So, you're welcome
Don't worry about it
Just stay on the couch
Judge what other people do
Don't do anything for yourself
I'd hate to see it happen to you

If that's what gets your dick hard
Telling people they're bad at making art
Feeling just like you're the one in charge
Pissing on my most pathetic parts
>>
No. 28849 ID: b7e0a2

The skeleton key is a genuinely good movie.
>>
No. 28851 ID: 35089a

i dont understand what people have against pineapple pizza
>>
No. 28854 ID: b1b4f3

>>28851
I like it.
>>
No. 28856 ID: d4516a

>>28851
It's a discordant clash of tastes. Pineapple is sweet and juicy, where pizza is greasy and salty. Both of them are delicious in my opinion, separately, but if you put them together they come into conflict and fuck the whole thing up.
>>
No. 28858 ID: 5b93d3

>>120626
>if you understand how neural networks develop (both machine and natural) you can see how the amount of information they contain can easily become computationally impossible to monitor in its entirety
If you think that, you need to do a LOT more research into the fundamentals of how NNs and SLNNs work.
Because all NNs are software-based (all parameters, even for accelerated ASICs, are stored as variables. There are no physical axons or synapses or analogues) they are by definition perfectly model-able (it is the model that operates). And because the entire goal of NNs for commercial use is to produce a limited range of outputs using the minimal possible inputs, fully characterising a given NN is not a herculean task in the least.
> and so underhandedness can naturally develop unnoticed just as a part of efficiently achieving whatever they were set out to achieve.)
Please don't use Hollywood depictions of AIs as a foundation for thinking about how AIs work in reality. Movies and TV are hilariously bad at even approaching reasonable depictions of how AIs work. That's how you end up with pop-science nonsense like the "paperclip optimiser apocalypse", that assume an AI capable of extremely felxible heuristic reasoning, capable of applying that reasoning to areas far outside it's original training set, but incapable of applying that reasoning to it's own operation (and thus by definition NOT be a self-learning neural network but a static pre-trained one).
>>
No. 28859 ID: cdb7be

>>120634

Oh no, I didn't mean to imply that I've been paying attention to dramatizations, it was more just the basic idea for example of poorly informed but insistent executives asking for the creation of far too generalised networks because they want to find as many answers to a generic question as possible. Yes it may be quite a lot further down the line until we can make something complex enough to unavoidably depend on self-monitoring, but it doesn't seem inconceivable that we would eventually be able to create AI SDKs that can be used to create even more arbitrary SDKs such that even the most inexperienced programmers are able to create their own applications that literally do anything within the computational ability available to them, regardless of their understanding of the results that might occur. I guess I'm talking about the automation of process creation mixed with human lack of understanding, like a "child picking up a power tool" kind of situation. I understand that a lot of these will have systems that say "you can't do x or y", but that becomes less dependable an assumption if you get more experienced but nevertheless still amateur (or even unlawful) programmers creating and releasing their own less restricted SDKs that don't have as many checks involved. I just mean as it becomes easier to automate intention, if someone doesn't have due consideration of the outcomes of what they're doing then they could create things that cause significant issues for everyone else. I'm entirely for the concept of AI itself, it's just that with any increase in general automation comes increased power, and we have to ensure that people are able to use that power responsibly.
>>
No. 28860 ID: 5b93d3

>>120640
There is no more chance of somebody accidentally creating an 'evil AI' out of ignorance than an untrained machinist accidentally creating an implosion-type thermonuclear device on a shop lathe.

The AI 'advances' of today are not magic. They are concepts developed decades ago and discarded as too inelegant or inefficient to be worth pursuing, but now are worth pursuing simply because vastly more computational power can be thrown at the problem now. Regardless of the shiny smartphone interfaces they are presented through, today's AIs are extremely special-purpose, very far from general purpose, and not 'self training'. Indeed, the current 'Deep Learning' industry is built around the dichotomy between computational devices for training (massive datacentres filled with GPUs or ASICs) and computational devices for inference (portable coprocessors that are effectively fixed-function and are the ones that actually get access to live inputs).
>>
No. 28970 ID: 2474dd

>There is no more chance of somebody accidentally creating an 'evil AI' out of ignorance than an untrained machinist accidentally creating an implosion-type thermonuclear device on a shop lathe.

Holy shit that sounds like the start of an amazing quest.
>>
No. 29083 ID: e52162
File 153671021637.jpg - (3.23MB , 3120x4160 , P_20180911_195429.jpg )
29083

I argue this is hurting children's artistic development
>>
No. 29170 ID: d5e7dd

>>29083
I think you might be onto something.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [Last 100 posts]

Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason