It’s been a good couple of years for news coming out of China.
Maybe we’ll hear about to xi having a heart attack next
It’s been a good couple of years for news coming out of China.
Maybe we’ll hear about to xi having a heart attack next
But why male models?
is doing that by lifting restrictions it previously had on the number of kids per family.
No. They are trying to culturally push people to have kids now. Dropping one child not only didn’t work, their birth rates went down since then.
Putin asking Russians to make more kids won’t magically improve demographics
No, but Putin can do more than ask. So can China.
1 - Russia tries to force migrants into Finland.
2 - Finland closes borders.
3 - Russia forced to accept migrants.
Perfect outcome.
Kids are cheap. All you really need is food and people.
Schools and car seats and houses are expensive, but if a generation has tons of kids, you’ll have the manpower to make those things in 15 years.
Russia is kind of fucked right now and not only in demographic decline, but making it worse by killing half their young people. Will they pull out of it? Probably not.
But can they afford it? They absolutely can. And it’s bad news for the rest of the world if they do. Don’t underestimate this move. Especially because China is doing the same.
Do you want AI to exclusively be in the hands of big companies and the government?
Do you want the future of technology locked behind pay walls and censored so that you can’t use it to do anything they don’t want you to do?
If you think AI regulation comes in the form of making sure big companies can’t do bad things to you, you haven’t been paying attention.
Big AI regulation fan.
I’d say good riddance but the replacement is worse
deleted by creator
Turns out a mass terror attack on a nation rarely benefits the attacker or the nation that was attacked, normally with the attacker coming away worse than their better armed opponent.
It’s basically 9/11 all over again. But on a smaller scale and with a Middle Eastern nation far happier to be brutal on the targeted side.
Saudi is probably more annoyed at Hamas for getting in the way of their plans than they are considering cutting off their deals.
You seem quite disturbed and angered by the fact that I would be disturbed and voice that worry if I saw a bunch of Nazis around.
Over 30 Harvard organizations
Student groups.
Almost all muslim student groups.
Who immediately got denounced hard by every other Harvard institution.
People cheer for nazis, too. Are you going to make a generic claim that “It’s mind-blowing that people defend these monsters” as well?
Yes. If I ever see a significant number of people defending the Nazis in spaces I speak in I will say exactly that.
deleted by creator
It doesn’t really matter whether the original data is present in the model
Yeah it does. One of the arguments people make is that AI models are just a form of compression, and as a result distributing the model is akin to distributing all the component parts. This fact invalidates that argument.
This isn’t a slam dunk argument that there’s nothing wrong with what an AI does even if we grant it is transformative. It may also simply be proving that the copyright law we have fails to protect artists in the new era of AI.
If we change the law to make it illegal it’s illegal.
Over fitting is an issue for the images that were overfit. But note in that article that those images mostly appeared many times in the data set.
People who own the rights to one of those images have a valid argument. Everyone else doesn’t.
It is illegal to use copyrighted material period outside of fair use, and this is most certainly not.
Yeah it is. Even assuming fair use applied, fair use is largely a question of how much a work is transformed and (a billion images) -> AI model is just about the most transformative use case out there.
And this assumes this matters when they’re literally not copying the original work (barring over fitting). It’s a public internet download. The “copy” is made by Facebook or whoever you uploaded the image to.
The model doesn’t contain the original artwork or parts of it. Stable diffusion literally has one byte per image of training data.
They use a ton of data as reference points. It’s literally in the name of the technology.
Reference is the wrong word.
They learn the patterns that exist in data and are able to predict future patterns.
They don’t actually reference the source material during generation (barring over itting which can happen and is roughly akin to a human memorizing something and reproducing it).
RVC is the most popular tool I’m aware of
https://github.com/RVC-Project/Retrieval-based-Voice-Conversion-WebUI
Fuck Quebec