Funny how you never blame moderate republicans who refused to switch their vote.

Maybe you should appeal to someone else next time?

I have yet to meet a Trump supporter who is a real person. I’m convinced they’re brain worms ina meat suit

Yeah. The demo needed to take him to task years ago. The fact they waited until the election is a political move and decision. And a poorly thought out one

The question. Is why would you play into it? Why give them the opportunity? It’s thw worst idea of a lot of bad ones

And I don’t think you recognise what a bomb that would be at the moment of government handover. Claims from new cabinet monster kamala stole the election.

Dude. This is a much more volatile situation than it has been in the past, with loads of potential for it to blow up in her face.

It’s a risky more she doesn’t need to make.

The only positive for her tp have a republican in cabinet is that she wants to be bipartisan. A stupid move when the whole party has endorsed trump and won’t listen to any dissent. The only way a republican could blow up their career would be to not resign and accuse them of corruption.

Yeh and they resign in protest at the first sign of controversy and allege corruption.

Not a smart move

You’re right, it’s not. It needs to know what things look like. Which. Once again, it’s not going to without knowing what those things look like. Sorry dude either csam is in the training data and can do this. Or it’s not. But I’m pretty tired of this. Later fool

Once again you’re showing the limits of AI. A dragon exists in fiction. It exists in the mind of someone drawing it. While in ai, there is no mind, the concept cannot independently exist.

Generative AI, just like a human, doesn’t rely on having seen an exact example of every possible image or concept

If a human has never seen a dog before, they don’t know what it is or what it looks like.

If it’s the same as a human, it won’t be able to draw one.

I wasn’t the one attempting to prove that. Though I think it’s definitive.

You were attempting to prove it could generate things not in its data set and i have disproved your theory.

To me, the takeaway here is that you can take a shitty 2 minute photoshop doodle and by feeding it thru AI it’ll improve the quality of it by orders of magnitude.

To me, the takeaway is that you know less about ai than you claim. Much less. Cause we have actual instances and many where csam is in the training data. Don’t believe me?

Here’s a link to it

But you do know because corn dogs as depicted in the picture do not exists so there couldn’t have been photos of them in the training data, yet it was still able to create one when asked.

Yeah, except photoshop and artists exist. And a quick google image search will find them. 🙄

Then if your question is “how many Photograph of a hybrid creature that is a cross between corn and a dog were in the training data?”

I’d honestly say, i don’t know.

And if you’re honest, you’ll say the same.

Also if you’d like to see how the corn dog comment is absurd and wrong. Go look up my comment.

It didn’t generate what we expect and know a corn dog is.

Hence it missed because it doesn’t know what a “corn dog” is

You have proven the point that it couldn’t generate csam without some being present in the training data

A dumb argument. Corn and dog were. But that’s not a corn dog like what we expect when we think corn dog.

Hence it can’t get what we know a corn dog is.

You have proved the point for us since it didn’t generate a corn dog.

Sure thing bud. Sure thing 🙄

No, I am telling you csam images can’t be generated by an algorithm that hasn’t trained on csam

Are you stupid? Something has to be in the training model for any generation to be possible. This is just a new way to revitalise kids

Tbh i was late to the hate. Wasn’t it run or sourced by ground news? Was it inaccurate or something?