I’ll bring chairs and a blanket

May I join you on this hill?

Nah, it’s actually possible to see each version. There are actually three: white and gold, blue and black, blue and brown. It’s like those “magic eye puzzles”. It just kinda pops into place when it happens. Depending on the lighting in your room and what colors your eyes have recently been looking at, your eyes will see it differently. It has partly to do with how what you “see” is a hodgepodge of signals all being processed into one “image” and the way we process color.

You are correct tho, objectively the image is a specific RGB value and has a defined “color”. That whole divergence between what it is and what it appears to be is the very subject of all those research papers.

I believe one of the ways to easily defeat this trick is to put the dress on a person. The skin tone will act as a known reference point for the rest.

You’re a moron. First off, his name is Miazaki, and secondly, that quote is taken out of context. Do you just believe whatever you’re told to believe with no research? Looks like it.

And AI ethics? Are you fucking serious? Sure, the world is filled with slave labor and corruption and human trafficking and you’re over here defending copyright. The most capitalistic, corporate position you can take.

If you couldn’t copy someone else’s art style, 99% of Deviant Art wouldn’t even exist. Ffs, painting and sculpture are broken into various periods based on how everything was a certain vibe. Where do you think Surrealism, realism, cubism and other terms come from?

Hell, this meme was stolen from Fox/Seth MacFarlane. Did OP get permission to steal someone else’s art and plaster text on it? Literally the same ethics you claim to defend.

These posts really just come across as a bunch of bitter Art Institute graduates who can’t do shit with their “degree”.

I just find it rich that most of these memes are just made with a website that adds captions… “Hurr durr my 5 clicks are more valid than your 5 clicks”

Art is the idea and its expression. Bunch of pretentious snobs.

As much as I want to hate the researchers for this, how are you going to ethically test whether you can manipulate people without… manipulating people. And isn’t there an argument to be made for harm reduction? I mean, this stuff is already going on. Do we just ignore it or only test it in sanitized environments that won’t really apply to the real world?

I dunno, mostly just shooting the shit, but I think there is an argument to be made that this kind of research and it’s results are more valuable than the potential harm. Tho the way this particular research team went about it, including changing the study fundamentally without further approval, does pose problems.

Did that actually get confirmed? I saw that as well but it wasn’t confirmed as best as I can tell. RIP if true. Dude was a legend.

No, originally I said “Bitcoin is great if you don’t use the blockchain”, mocking the lightning networks existence because blockchain on its own is terrible for transactions. I never said they were almost comparable. They’re not. One is a database that’s been proven to work for all kinds of things, and the other is a techbros fantasy that wastes energy and is basically just tech stocks at this point.

Keep up.

I never said bots were the problem. I said people caring more about popularity is the problem and that once you realize this it’s super easy to program bots to imitate people by up voting/down voting what you want. But yes, call me dense when you’ve misconstrued my argument from day one.

Edit: didn’t look like my previous comment posted so I rewrote it. Considering how dense you are tho, maybe two versions will help you finally understand, so I’ll just leave it.

Because I never said bots are to blame. People are and once you realize that, programming a bot to do what people can do is super easy.

I get offended when people try to tell me I made an argument I never made. But thanks again buddy 👍

Remind me again where Bitcoin is actually used vs actual databases. It didn’t solve anything and did it in an energy hungry way. It’s not “almost sort of comparable”. All of the scams that immediately came about because it doesn’t have the numerous regulations regular financial instruments have is proof. For the last decade Bitcoin has been struggling to reach parity with financial regulations. Ffs, the US PRESIDENT JUST PULLED A RUG PULL.

Blockchain is just digital speculation.

“They tried to break free but it didn’t work”.

You know we call that a failure, right? You’re the one attaching emotion to it. Did it succeed? No. Thus it failed.

It’s not semantics. It’s basically logic. Maybe don’t try and be a sophist. I never said it couldn’t be tried again. In fact I said quite the opposite: you need to see this as a failure, address why, and make changes before trying again. But you’re just stuck on the word “failure” and your own preconceptions. No one thinks this was a test of “just Bitcoin”. The dark markets already tested Bitcoin thoroughly over a decade ago. This was a test of real world application of Bitcoin as a a government backed currency in the hopes of avoiding outside influence. Outside influence came in and managed to remove Bitcoin - the exact thing that was trying to be proved it was immune to.

But cope harder if it helps you sleep at night.

Try reading the whole thing and comprehending it as a complex thought with nuance. I’ll wait. Might take you awhile but I’ll wait.

You realize “it’s so energy and time consuming that we had to create a secondary layer to try and make it actually usable” isn’t the defense you think it is, right?

You ended your comment saying you completely disagree with me after reiterating what I’d just said as if it were your own thought.

You really need to work on your communication and reading comprehension buddy.

Yeah, and Zelle, Cashapp, venmo, PayPal all do the same and don’t have that environmental impact you so easily dismissed.

It’s been great watching Bitcoin grow from this digital currency for buying drugs online to having all these layers added on to almost sort of make it comparable to the systems we already have. By the time you guys actually make something that isn’t just stocks with no backing but faith, we’ll have moved on to a post-money society(probably not but I have more faith in that than blockchain ever being a useful currency.

Again, for the people in the back:

The experiment was whether or not they could be independent monetarily. Not whether or not blockchain works. But whether, in actual practice, if it could provide the monetary independence some people claim it has the power to do.

Outside influences were strong enough to overwhelm Bitcoin adoption and it succumbed to those outside influences. As an experiment seeking to test whether or not Bitcoin could resist these influences it failed.

This is how experimentation works. Now you can tweak your experiment and try again, but acting like failing at the exact thing you were trying to accomplish is somehow not an experimental failure is just delusional.

So they experimented with resisting the US and IMF and it was not successful.

We call that an experimental failure.

You really don’t get it. “Blockchain” was not the experiment. “Utilizing blockchain in the global economy” was the experiment.

And it failed.

So when I wrote about bots, I was describing them as an effect created by a cause. You went and reversed the two and are thinking I blamed bots.

No.

What I said was that voting based moderation is a popularity contest. An easy way to win popularity contests is to stuff the ballot. On the internet, you can do this with bots. Ergo, the rise in bots all over the Internet is a consequence of our popularity based algorithms and systems. That type of moderation just doesn’t work. But please, keep misunderstanding people and then blaming others. I’m sure that’ll help.

If you’re gonna disagree with my idea, at least get it right. You’re not being downvotted heavily for not agreeing with the hive mind in the right way. You’re being downvotted for lacking reading comprehension and going off on a crazy sounding tangent.

The experiment was to move beyond external parties. They were not able to do so and returned to using external parties. Ergo “the experiment failed”.