swlabr @ swlabr @awful.systems

Only Bayes Can Judge Me

---

Read more

Posts

36

Comments

1,732

Joined

2 yr. ago

The “tool” branding only works if you formulate it like this: in a world where a hammer exists and is commonly used to force nails into solid objects, imagine another tool that requires you to first think of shoving a nail into wood. You pour a few bottles of water into the drain, whisper some magic words, and hope that the tool produces the nail forcing function you need. Otherwise you keep pouring out bottles of water and hoping that it does a nail moving motion. It eventually kind of does it, but not exactly, so you figure out a small tweak which is to shove the tool at the nail at the same time as it does its action so that the combined motion forces the nail into your desired solid. Do you see the problem here?

That’s the problem, isn’t it? If it can only maybe be good when used narrowly, what’s the point? If you’ve managed to corner a subproblem down to where an LLM can generate the code for it, you’ve already done 99% of the work. At that point you’re better off just coding it yourself. At that point, it’s not “good when used narrowly”, it’s useless.

All compiled code is machine generated! BRB gonna clang and IPO, bye awful.systems! Have fun being poor

Oh. I mean there certainly are good points to be made about this sort of thing (lack of representation of a diversity of body types is probably the most correct one to think of). That one guy phrased his concern with such a specific mix of virtue signalling and horn-dogging that it had to be called out. And it was so specific that I wanted to know if other people were saying the same thing.

I stand by my opinion that the art we were talking about wasn’t particularly sexy. You could validly argue that there was objectification of women going on in the art (a woman coded robot is literally an objectified woman) but that wasn’t what that one guy was saying. Women of all shapes and sizes exist! They can be as sexy or unsexy as they want! A woman existing in a picture doesn’t automatically make the picture sexy, unless you’re a gooner-pilled moron. And in general we shouldn’t be commenting on women’s bodies where it isn’t appropriate.

But anyway, powering up my homespun BeefGPT to find those specific skeets, you can’t stop me 😡😡😡

The headlines said that 30% of code at Microsoft was AI now! Huge if true!

Something like MS word has like 20-50 million lines of code. MS altogether probably has like a billion lines of code. 30% of that being AI generated is infeasible given the timeframe. People just ate this shit up. AI grifting is so fucking easy.

as long as you don’t yuck my yum we good

Specifically about the pivot to AI art??? I gotta know…

Joke’s getting a bit tired I think but RE: picture in article: I want to file a CoC(k) complaint

Oh cool what do you work on? I’d love to know the product.

Ah so you’re consistently choosing to make us horny!!!

Hi hi please explain my boner

Hey, it costs a lot to coif up that hair.

 green

    
>lightweight
>powered by large language models


  

lol

Unrelated to this: man, there should be a parody account called “based beff jeck” which is just a guy trying to promote beck’s vast catalogue as the future of music. Also minus any mention of johnny depp.

Note: the slop in the article preview is Derek smart’s pfp, as he has waded into the comments section. I will not post highlights

How did this thread blow up so much?

Sexy woman coded, perhaps, unless you’re saying that women who don’t have prominent breasts and what appears to be makeup aren’t real women

Why are you conflating “real”ness with sexiness?

But this is a drawing of a machine. Machines don’t have gender, biological or social or otherwise.

This is actually incorrect. Gender is a social construct. Anything can have gender if (a) society agrees upon it.

Whoever created this image thought, consciously or not, “I’m going to make a picture of a robot, and I’m gonna make it a sexy woman robot.” Not just a “woman-coded” humanoid robot […]

You have not proved this. Also, which is it? Machines don’t have gender, or this machine is a sexy woman robot? Your analysis and discourse are inconsistent and lacking.

because that can be done without playing heavy on the sexiness, right?

Again, the image is not particularly sexy. Just having large breast-analogs in the picture doesn’t make it sexy, unless you’re a stereotypical teenage boy.

So why? Why make a sexy woman robot? I ask again: Am I supposed to want to fuck it?

You have not earned the right to ask these questions.

Stupid sexy robots!

E: Oh also that’s just straight up rape culture.

The art is the way that it is because the artist made it that way. The image is not particularly sexual, and robot art can be woman-coded. If you want to project some misogynist angle onto some stock art that has no bearing on the article, that's fine, I guess.

This is the plot of the Ace Attorney series