Peanut

the issue is that this is a lot of assumption on the comment’s intention in their response to OP. i feel the emphasis keeps moving back to how they misinterpreted OP, and their failing in doing so. i’m both recognizing their ‘failing,’ but also suggesting that it is more of an issue on how people are interpreting it as invalid via their own biases and preferences.

not projecting the same preference becomes seen as ‘misreading the room,’ rather than a valid response for a different type of person. it becomes assumed as intentionally, or definitively ‘rude’ rather than just a different, and still valid way of responding to the information provided for some people.

i assume nothing negative was meant by it, even if it wasn’t the implied commiseration op was looking for, this does not make it suddenly antagonistic. the issue is that so many view it immediately as antagonistic or ‘wrong,’ where it could have been entirely valid were i OP, and saying the same thing as OP. we all have many blindspots, and some things aren’t always salient.

if you experience this reaction every time society sees that you interpreted things differently, you get a bunch of autistic people (or other groups in preference/experiential minority) hating life. this is also indicative of many other communication failures due to excess fitting towards homogeneity and unconsciously creating social rules to keep things simple and energy free. if you are a surprising element, you get chastised for making others expend energy interpreting your model, because you haven’t successfully been beaten into being less noticeable, even if it completely denies your lived reality. see gay conversion therapy/ABA (same source) for how that tactic is often applied.

not to escalate, but a constant barrage of these experiences, often without such context being given, leads to many otherwise well-adjusted autistic people hating life, and opting out enitrely. this is why i feel compelled to promote understanding of the different styles of interpretation. i don’t want to lose any more friends.

many autistic people are already trying, but the communication failure isn’t just on their side of the interaction. but it’s easier to tar and feather the person as an easy pariah than to try and consider how the perspective may have had intention less as a slight, and more as a valid recommendation for those who have a different dialect for interpretating “…see a movie.”

i suggest looking up any autistic experiences, because a lot boil down to trauma of escalated antagonism just for existing and not already having the exact preferences of others, which makes predicting them impossible without a doctorate in non-autistic preference modelling, and writing that over your whole existence any time you interact with the public.

also understanding the double empathy problem can help with many other communication difficulties in non homogeneous groups

makes sense. i’m coming to see how people do this, but it’s still baffling to me. by ‘this’ i mean socially affirming each-other, rather than trying to interact with the issue in any way. not just as preferred, but as a forced exclusive.

also legitimately sorry that i can’t compress the whole picture to a quick quip.

but what i meant by my comment was as much asserting that the comment being downvoted to oblivion was possibly more misinterpreted in intent and meaning than their own interaction with OP’s meme.

i see it as low dimensional communication exacerbating the size of blindspots for the whole of what is being communicated, because everyone is trying to reduce the energy consumption of language by socially affirming heuristics built on salient preference. this can be mapped to first principles from friston’s free energy principle, into active inference. MITpress has a good textbook for it, although there’s been a lot of new work since then. those who don’t naturally share that preference become ‘wrong’ for communicating what they could interpret without having that same importance given tothings they might not think about, like social ego stroking over just interacting with the concept sans ego.

more commonly, people are becoming familiar with the ‘double empathy problem’ basically a context and language equivalent to yelling at the autistic kid for not making levels of eye contact that they find painfully intimate and uncomfortable. yes, the local community can think eye contact is ‘just having basic manners’ or ‘just being a decent person,’ but forcing them to do it, and creating a majority salient confirmation bubble chastising them for not doing it constantly and confidently is salt in the wound.

again, thank you for reading this far if you has. none of this is accusatory towards anyone, just an honest attempt at noting current popular communication failures and how to frame them.

the double empathy problem also applies to most predictive models projecting in differently socialized spaces. it’s good for people to comprehend.

As an autistic person who sees information sharing as more valid and respectable than affirming possible ignorant perspectives for the sake of obtuse social saliency, all I see is a fact and a valid question.

Also valid advice for those with money. If you can save money from a theater ticket to another Disney slop live action remake, and donate that money to independent artists trying to survive and simultaneously have a voice despite the Disney/warner types stranglehold over sellable cinema for most public spaces.

People get so upset when anything questions their current trajectory, rather than saying “oh yeah, that’s a valid perspective to avoid the issue in context.”

And gets a lot of autistic people yelled at for doing their job or trying to help, IMO.

Is there a reason the advice and question aren’t valid? To me the only rudeness here is in the framing of the rebuke.

This isn’t trying to one up anyone, this is an attempt to communicate, and improve people’s ability to communicate.

I’ve even seen doctors excuse bullying of autistic children because the child joined discussion of test scores without pandering to the ego of people that were socially affirming how terrible the test must be, due to their performance.

At this point people need to start trying to understand the double empathy problem, because it’s valid for more cases of communication differences than just autism.

Thank you for reading!

It’s the “you stole my style” artists attacking artists all over again. And digital art isn’t real att/cameras are evil/cgi isn’t real art all over with a more organic and intelligent medium.

The issue is the same as it has always been. Anything and everything is funneled to the rich and the poor blame the poor who use technology, because anthropocentric bias makes it easier to vilify than the assholes building our cage around us.

The apple “ecosystem” has done much more damage than AI artists, but people can’t seem to comprehend how. Also Disney and corpos broke copyright so that its just a way for the rich to own words and names and concepts, so that the poor can’t use them to get ahead.

All art is a remix. Disney only became successful using other artists hard work in the Commons. Now the Commons is a century more out of grasp, so only the rich can own the artists and hoard the growth of art.

Also which artists actually have the time and money to litigate? I guess copyright does help some nepo artists.

Nepotism is the main way to earn your right to invest into becoming an artist that isn’t fatiguing towards collapse of life.

But let’s keep yelling at the technology for being evil.

deleted by creator

I see intelligence as filling areas of concept space within an econiche in a way that proves functional for actions within that space. I think we are discovering more that “nature” has little commitment, and is just optimizing preparedness for expected levels of entropy within the functional eco-niche.

Most people haven’t even started paying attention to distributed systems building shared enactive models, but they are already capable of things that should be considered groundbreaking considering the time and finances of development.

That being said, localized narrow generative models are just building large individual models of predictive process that doesn’t by default actively update information.

People who attack AI for just being prediction machines really need to look into predictive processing, or learn how much we organics just guess and confabulate ontop of vestigial social priors.

But no, corpos are using it so computer bad human good, even though the main issue here is the humans that have unlimited power and are encouraged into bad actions due to flawed social posturing systems and the confabulating of wealth with competency.

While I agree about the conflict of interest, I would largely say the same thing despite no such conflict of interest. However I see intelligence as a modular and many dimensional concept. If it scales as anticipated, it will still need to be organized into different forms of informational or computational flow for anything resembling an actively intelligent system.

On that note, the recent developments with active inference like RXinfer are astonishing given the current level of attention being paid. Seeing how llms are being treated, I’m almost glad it’s not being absorbed into the hype and hate cycle.

As always, the problem is our economic system that has funneled every gain and advance to the benefit of the few. The speed of this change will make it impossible to ignore the need for a new system. If it wasn’t for AI, we would just boil the frog like always. But let’s remember the real issue.

If a free food generating machine is seen as evil for taking jobs, the free food machine wouldn’t be the issue. Stop protesting AI, start protesting affluent society. We would still be suffering under them even if we had destroyed the loom.

I’m talking about the general strides in cognitive computing and predictive processing.

https://youtu.be/A1Ghrd7NBtk?si=iaPVuRjtnVEA2mqw

Machine learning is still impressive, we just can better frame the limitations now.

For the note on scale and ecosystems, review recent work by karl friston or Michael Levin.

Perhaps instead we could just restructure our epistemically confabulated reality in a way that doesn’t inevitably lead to unnecessary conflict due to diverging models that haven’t grown the necessary priors to peacefully allow comprehension and the ability exist simultaneously.

breath

We are finally coming to comprehend how our brains work, and how intelligent systems generally work at any scale, in any ecosystem. Subconsciously enacted social systems included.

We’re seeing developments that make me extremely optimistic, even if everything else is currently on fire. We just need a few more years without self focused turds blowing up the world.

AI or no AI, the solution needs to be social restructuring. People underestimate the amount society can actively change, because the current system is a self sustaining set of bubbles that have naturally grown resilient to perturbations.

The few people who actually care to solve the world’s problems are figuring out how our current systems inevitably fail, and how to avoid these outcomes.

However, the best bet for restructuring would be a distributed intelligent agent system. I could get into recent papers on confirmation bias, and the confabulatory nature of thought, on the personal level, group level, and society level.

Turns out we are too good at going with the flow, even when the structure we are standing on is built over highly entrenched vestigial confabulations that no longer help.

Words, concepts, and meanings change heavily depending on the model interpreting them. The more divergent, the more difficulty in bridging this communication gap.

a distributed intelligent system could not only enable a complete social restructuring with autonomy and altruism both guaranteed, but with an overarching connection between the different models at every scale, capable of properly interpreting the different views, and conveying them more accurately than we could have ever managed with model projection and the empathy barrier.

“The surprising thing we find is that, essentially, you can use the largest model to help you automatically design the smaller ones”

Hey, how do we get a clickbait title out of this?

I definitely agree that copyright is a good half century in need of an update. Disney company and other contemporaries should never have been allowed the dominance and extension of copywrite that allows what feels like ownership of most global artistic output. They don’t need AI, they have the money and interns to create whatever boardroom adjusted art they need to continue their dominance.

Honestly I think the faster AI happens, the more likely it is that we find a way out of the social and economical hierarchical structure that feels one step from anarcho-capitalistic aristocracy.

I just hope we can find the change without riots.

And you violate copyright when you think about copywritten things alone at night.

I violate copyright when i draw Mario and don’t sell it to anybody.

Or these are dumb stretches of what copyright is and how it should be applied.

the reasoning in this article is dumb and all over the place.

Seems like gary marcus being gary marcus.

Already seen openAI calling out some of the bullshit specifically noted in this. That doesn’t matter though, damage is done and people WANT to believe ai is terrible in every way.

Everyone is just deadfast determined to climb onto the gary marcus unreasonable AI hate train no matter what.

God I want some large projects by independent teams. It’s impossible to do anything without a sponsor, but this might be what we need for smaller groups to create wonderful complex works of art, instead of cookiecutter boardroom content machines that currently flood almost all available commercial artistic spaces.

Can’t wait to see how the tech develops. It’s be curious to do VR experience recreations of my dreams through AI dictation.

Modelling, rigging, animation and the like are all coming. Imagine walking around a world being crafted and changed as you describe each element to be exactly what you are looking for.

I think it would capture more artist intent than the unnecessary interface of archaic tools that create an artificial interface and challenge between you and your vision.

Especially if you’ve damaged your digits, or otherwise lack digital dexterity.

But change scares people. Especially ones who have put in effort to conform to the current economic system corporate art creators.

That’s already the system outside of creating what rich people want. An entire team of artists creating boardroom directed art is much less art to me than a single creative using AI to bring their personal vision to life.

Hopefully individual artists can do more with these tools, and we can all hope for a world where artists can be supported to have the ability and freedom to create apart from the whims of the wealthy.

Starving artist is a term for a reason. Technology has never been the real problem.

Wouldn’t put it past bezos for being responsible for the megastructure

I believe it will require a level and pace of informational processing that is far beyond what humans will accomplish alone. just having a system that can efficiently sift through the excess existing papers, and find correlations or contradictions would be amazing for development of new technology. if you are paying attention to any environmental sciences right now, it’s terrifying in an extremely real and tangible way. we will not outpace the collapse without an intense increase in technological development.

if we bridge the gap of analogical comprehension in these systems, they could also start introducing or suggesting technologies that could help slow down or reverse the collapse. i think this is much more important than making sure sarah silverman doesn’t have her work paraphrased.

Personally I find this stupid. If we have robots walking around, are they going to be sued every time they see something that’s copywrited?

It’s this what will stop progress that could save us from environmental collapse? That a robot could summarize your shitty comedy?

Copywrite is already a disgusting mess, and still nobody cares about models being created specifically to manipulate people en mass. “What if it learned from MY creations” asks every self obsessed egoist in the world.

Doesn’t matter how many people this tech could save after another decade of development. Somebody think of the [lucky few artists that had the connections and luck to make a lot of money despite living in our soul crushing machine of a world]

All of the children growing up abused and in pain with no escape don’t matter at all. People who are sick or starving or homeless do no matter. Making progress to save the world from immanent environmental disaster doesn’t matter. Let Canada burn more and more every year. As long as copywrite is protected, all is well.