Either you believe what he says, or you don’t.
That’s a false dichotomy. 10% of what Trump says is true but 90% of what he says is insane, so 9% of what Trump says should legitimately concern everyone. Because we don’t know which 10% is true, we have to be concerned about everything he says.
“Glowies”? As in “glow in the dark CIA n-words”? Bro turned into Tarry Davis.
Just pick a random military general in the Middle East to assassinate.
Lemmy even has the option to disable downvotes, so they’re obviously using downvotes as some kind of purity test.
Side note, there should be a way to soft block certain instances so you can see and interact with its federated posts but not send anything to the instance itself. You want to limit open discussion on your instance? Fine, but everyone else is still going to talk about you.
When one community goes in mass
Slightly off-topic, but it’s en masse, not “in mass”
I would agree with you if the choice was between Trump and vampire Hitler, but Harris was such a better choice than Trump that to still vote for Trump requires that you approve of (at least) most of what he does. That alone is enough to make me think you’re a bad person.
Brodie thinks that they stiww weft themsewves some wiggwe woom fow ““sewwing”” uwsew data.
This modified version of your comment has been licensed under the GPLv3
Perl should say: You are old and a nerd or you use Debian
Plenty of moral things are illegal or barely legal in certain places. For example, homosexual adults having consensual sex with each other in their own home. I assume you don’t think that’s unethical or immoral?
It doesn’t need to get more authentic, it just needs to get more arousing, and we have a perfectly ethical way to measure that. You tell the AI it was “right” if the pedos you show it to get aroused.
Why would “thousands of photos of drawings of children in sexual contexts” be unethical?
Probably not, but that’s irrelevant. The point is that no one needs to harm a child to find out if the output is sufficiently arousing.
“Okay” in what sense? If you mean morally, then I think that’s pretty clear cut. If you mean legally, then that’s just a technicality.
It doesn’t matter if it’s accurate or not as long as pedos can get off to it, so just keep going until they can. According to our definition of what a pedophile is, though, it would likely be accurate.
Non-pornographic pictures of children and/or human-made pornographic drawings of children.
deleted by creator
If you train a model on 1,000,000 images of dogs and 1,000,000 images of cats, your output isn’t going to be a 50/50 split of purely dogs and purely cats, it’s going to be (on average) somewhere between a cat and a dog. At no point did you have to feed in pictures of dog-cat hybrids to end up with that model.
You could probably make some semi-realistic drawings and feed those in, and then re-train the model with those same images over and over until the model is biased to use the child-like properties of the drawings but the realism of the adult pictures. You could also feed the most CP-looking images from a partially trained model as the training data of another model, which over time would make the outputs approach the desired result.
My aunt joined a humanist church, which is basically “religion” for atheists. It was literally just Sunday mass without the worship.