I thought the woman on the right was half-asian, but I could be wrong. Are asian white people now? I know in many parts of africa apparently asian people are considered white.

It's a lack of purity-testing. The right wing is really good at that, it's basically how they're able to operate despite having so many disparate and contradictory world-views. I think the left should get better at it.

is that practice still happening? Where?

clover idolatry? 4chan iconography. This anon is just preaching to the choir. 🍀 ❗

withdraw

1. Your argument should not require appealing to desire to have the word computation be less redundant. (I don't really think there's a meaningful difference between computation and physics, we just generally use the term computation to refer to physical processes which result in useful information.) But why don't we define computation as being "anything that can be done on a conventional computer (with sufficient time and memory)" -- i.e. Turing-computable.
2. It is not relevant that we may not know all the physical laws of the universe; what matters only is whether there are laws or not. A scientist cannot cause free will to disappear from the universe simply by learning new facts about the laws of physics. (I would argue that if this were apparently true, then there was no free will to begin with.)
3. My understanding of compatabilism is that free will and determinism are compatible; in other words, the laws of physics can give arise to free will (consciousness, as you put it). I think there are some additional twists in compatabilism I don't entirely understand, but that's the gist as far as I have seen. In any case, compatabilism seems to me to be compatible with the idea that one can simulate a human brain; since the simulation and the original would produce the same result, then if one has free will, the other must have free will too. Simulating it multiple times will always result in the same thing, which therefore means that it's the same conscious experience -- the same free will -- each time, and not different instances of free will. In other words, consciousness is fungible with respect to simulation. Simulation=computation, so therefore human creativity is computable.

Please note that I'm not arguing that current AIs actually are on the level of human creativity, just that there's no law against that eventually being possible.

Well yeah, I don't care about IP rights. Nothing has been materially stolen, and if AI improves, then the result could some day in theory be indistinguishable from a human who was merely "inspired" by an existing piece of art. At the end of the day, the artist is not harmed by AI plagiarism; the artist is harmed by AI taking what could have been their job.

You're posting on lemmy.ml; we don't care much for intellectual property rights here. What we care about is that the working class not be deprived of their ability to make a living.

If I drew something myself, those artists would also not be paid. I can understand a deontological argument against using AI trained on people's art, but for me, the utilitarian argument is much stronger -- don't use AI if it puts an artist out of work.

radio

I agree with you. AI is bad for reasons other than that it is stealing IP.

Wouldn’t it be much cooler, if we commissioned an actual artist for the banner

I hate it when AI is used to replace the work an artist would have been paid for. But uh, this is a random open-source forum; there's no funding for artists to make banners. Rejecting AI art -- which was voted for by the community -- just seems like baseless virtue signalling. No artist is going to get paid if we remove it.

But like if you want to commission an artist with your own money, by all means go ahead. You'll still most likely need another community vote to approve it though.