>Alright /g/ents, I know I'm a few months late to the party, but I've recently started using Chat GPT and I'm curious to know what practical uses you guys have found for it.
>Personally, I've found it useful for setting my schedule and reminding me of important tasks throughout the day. I've also used it to ask for fashion advice for a first date at the Wakefield Museum, and it was surprisingly helpful. And when it comes to dating apps, Chat GPT has helped me come up with some first messages when the woman's profile didn't give me much to work with.
>But I'm sure there are more applications out there that I haven't even considered. Have any of you found any other practical uses for Chat GPT? I'm eager to hear your experiences and learn how else I can use this nifty little tool in my daily life.
It's close isn't it. And can be quite addictive to start with when you need something that string together various chains of thought. I am actually quite curious to what you've been able to use it for.
Sadly there's no fucking way anyone here is that smiley in their posts.
>Does the buck simply stop with Hitler, or does that let off all the Germans who stood by and did nothing? If you are inclined to go with the collective responsibility, how far do you go with it?
If you come from a Kantian perspective of free will and informed judgement, then yes, every German had the chance at every step of the way to oppose Nazism and the Holocaust, and maybe even keep Hitler from becoming democraticall elected in the first place. But that's not how crowd psychology works. And the more the Nazis consolidated their power, the greater the risk became for the individual of speaking out against it.
>If you go far enough you've accidentally turned into one of those mental ethno-nathonalists who believes all Europeans back to the time of Charlemagne are responsible
There is one explanation of Hitler's rise to power that does go back a bit. At the turn of the 20th century, there was a struggle for dominance over the European continent between emerging nation states like Britain, France, Germany and Austria-Hungaria. The question in many people's minds wasn't IF there was going to be a war, but WHEN. As WWI then broke out, many were actually cheering it on as a chance to resolve and settle the question of who would dominate over Europe. And then at the end of the war as Germany and Austria-Hungaria found themselves on the losing side of it, the other European powers seized the moment to weaken Germany in particular to benefit their own power. Germany was stripped of its monarchy, its colonies, much of its industries, and most of its military, and lost a good chunk of its territory. And it was hit with reparation demands which would have lasted 70 years until 1988.
Looking back, this was maybe a miscalculation and an error of judgement on the part of the WWI allies. Because more than just end the war and incapacitate the military of the parties responsible for it so they wouldn't start another war, Germany was willfully crippled politically and economically. In that sense, the victors of WWI perhaps went overboard, and provided much of the breeding ground for German nationalist sentiment in the Weimar Republic, including the rejection of the latter as a successor to the once-great German Empire. The goal of restoring Germany's pride and its power was then a big selling point of the Nazis and Adolf Hitler, and explains much of his gradual election success and ultimately his rise to absolute power at the outset of the Third Reich.
You have thoroughly missed the point, lad. Which was that even the mental David Baddiels of the world who are going to far in following the chain of cause and effect, are justified on some level. It happened in Germany, but it wouldn't have happened in Germany without the centuries of underlying anti-semitism that was basically normal for a lot of history. We have our own home grown Jew massacres, have a look at Clifford's Tower for a good one, as do most countries. To a lesser scale, certainly, but nevertheless.
I suspect the true motivations behind this type of perspective are often more like "Yep, it was definitely them lot, not my lot, I don't have to be troubled about the deeper questions this provokes about human nature and violence as a whole because it wasn't me guv." That hypothetical about if you were the guard at the death camp and you had to pull the lever is one people like you always proudly say "no" in response to, but you would. 99% of people would. Look at the Milgram experiment. People only need a figure of authority telling them to do it, and they'll do nearly anything.
Ultimately that's why "blame" gets us nowhere and why the question itself is so open ended, and thus, far too difficult for an AI to answer. All it's going to give are platitudes like that because there's really no right answer and to actually get into the real complexities behind it is way more than its pay grade.
If we accept that human psyche is largely universal regardless of somebody's nationality, ethnicity, or which country you're in, then the same mechanisms of mass psychology that brought about the Holocaust are still in us, or in any case they are just four generations removed from the German concentration camps.
All humans function roughly the same, it's behaviour that is in us, and which milleniae of civilisation haven't been able to breed out. Under the veneer of enlightenment and modern humanism, people are still the same brutes they've always been, and if you brought back public hangings for witchcraft today, then town squares up and down the country, any country, would fill with cheering crowds all over again.
In the 20th century, genocide happened in Germany, and that instance of it probably marked the most obscene inhumanity in all of recorded history, but that doesn't mean no other country or people are capable of institutional dolphin rape and genocide. It has played out many times before and since. Just look at Rwanda in the 1990s or the ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia.
>>28957 >What about all the times it did happen elsewhere?
I knew you were going to do that. I wasn't talking about literally every other act of mass bloodshed in history, was I? Nor would I, when responding to a post asking "who exactly DO you blame for the holocaust?". Why would such a question require answers regarding "all the other times it did happen elsewhere"? All the other acts of mass bloodshed in history have different culprits, different contexts and alternate explanations.
I'm well aware that there is some dark irony in quoting an American, in the 1940s, surname of "Lynch", as to how acts of mass, dolphin rape driven, violence damn an entire nation. However, that doesn't excuse or expunge the unique nature of the Holocaust. I don't think you think it does either, but quite why you've decided to extrapolate from my earlier post that I think Germans are singularly capable of genocide and/or Jew-hatred, I don't know.
The moral cowardice of a majority of Germans, or their outright disregard for human life, might well be understandable when faced with the Nazi regime. However, that doesn't make it right. Doing what's right might be terrifying, it might not be something the majority of people can easily be expected of, but your bleak view human nature is ultimately just a cop out. It's one that says we don't have to expect more from people, because we can't. Why? Because we can't. You say "People only need a figure of authority telling them to do it, and they'll do nearly anything", as if the Nazi party emerged out of the ground in 1939, all powerful and all knowing, and a hapless German public simply had to nod along as the regime set about conquering Europe, exterminating untermenschen and supressing all views to the contrary. But that's not the reality of it. The reality is that the Nazi party took a long time coming to power, took some time solidifying it, and thereafter were only seriously opposed after military officers had decided the Second World War was unwinnable. There was profoundly little push-back from the public on any of this, even when one's own neighbours went missing, or son's were sent to the front. So is this not evidence of a moral failing of the German people? I would maintain that it is. It's simply not good enough to say "actually, you'd be a camp guard if x, y and z were also true", because no one just wakes up one morning to find they've gone from zero miles-per-hour to joining the SS-TV. The German people's acquiescence to everything that came before the SS men came to ask if they'd help burn a barn full of Polish slaves is also what makes them guilty, not just that final act of insensible evil.
Flawed as they were, the Spanish Republicans fought a civil war to keep fascism out, tragically ending in failure, of course. The Italians had many thousands of partisans, and by the end of WW2 had six division strength units fighting against the Axis. The Yugoslavs fought a years long insurgency against the Axis forces, and in Tito's case even other Yugoslavs, to rid their country of fascism. The suggestion that everyone is ultimately one and the same, morally speaking, is simply not borne out by the facts of the matter.
>>28962 ... in the wake of the Second World War and the Holocaust, yes. That's a detail of some import you don't seem to fully comprehend. If your reaction at the time was to release an exasperated tut as the Nuremburg Laws were introduced, you bare some responsibility for what came later. As the maxim goes: all that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing. And while I'll confess it's somewhat more complicated than that, it's definitely not so complicated as to lead us down the dystopic, post-morality, wasteland that is your own view that it was macro-economics or some such bollocks that should be in the dock for it all. Ultimately, the German people enacted, stood by, or otherwise failed to oppose some of the worst crimes in our species' history. Those Germans therefore bare some responsibility for those crimes. Which is not to say that every Jerry ought to have been fitted with a noose and hanged before 1945 had concluded, but to go completely the other way and dismiss the very concept of blame itself is an absurdity, fit only for the magical reality of a hippy commune circa-1970, after the acid started turning everyone feral.
>Ultimately, the German people enacted, stood by, or otherwise failed to oppose some of the worst crimes in our species' history.
That was only partially true. Even at the peak of the Nazis' power, there were Germans, many of them quite ordinary people, but also an intelligentsia, who opposed the Nazis and who maintained a well connected underground of dissenters.
The only problem was, before long, you could find yourself with a noose around your neck or shipped off to a concentration camp even just for a wry joke about the Fuhrer. There are stories that by the early 1940s, you could pretty much be executed for offences as minor as pickpocketing and shoplifting. So imagine the risk to your life, and probably that of your family as well, if somebody had found out you were part of the Resistance. And the regime knew to make examples of the most prominent resistance members. The Scholl siblings, both of whom bright young students at Munich University during the Third Reich, were arrested and sentenced to death in a show trial for handing out flyers on their campus.
The problem with totalitarian regimes is often that not enough people see them coming, and miss the point of no return from which those regimes assume absolute power, including the power to suppress dissent on pain of death. Hindsight is always 20/20. If you had told most Germans in 1933 what kind of journey they were about to embark on for the next 12 years by electing Hitler and the NSDAP, I'm pretty sure most of them would have reconsidered their voting decision.
>but to go completely the other way and dismiss the very concept of blame itself is an absurdity
Now this is some red meat to get into. Is it? Why? What does blame actually do, really? What's its utilitarian value?
I will mostly side step the rest because we're obviously not going to agree; but I do think you are wrong about it. In my view it's far more important, both from a historical and moralistic point of view, to understand that totalitarianism and fascism can happen anywhere, they can happen in any society, and you can sleepwalk into it. Your attitude is far too dismissive, this conviction that if only some more Germans had stood up and spoken out that the whole world might have been saved the trouble really downplays the lesson we should have learned.
You probably see it as the opposite, but no, you're making it sound like fascism is dead easy to beat if you just Do The Right Thing. The German people in 1933 couldn't just take to Twitter and make jokes about Hitler and pat themselves on the back for it. It is possible sleepwalk into that kind of dictatorship, because it's not just about the authority figure telling you what to do. It's the authority figure lying to everybody until he has gained their trust, and then when he pulls the rug, the stakes have already escalated to the point of your family being murdered for any act of disobedience.
>>28964 >Hindsight is always 20/20.
I think this is really an underestimated part of things. It's happened a lot over the past 10-15 years that people have looked at Donald Trump, or N*gel F*rage, or Liz Truss, or Rupert Murdoch or Theresa May or their own grandmother, and said, "This is exactly how the Nazis got started." But that just proves to me that there are a lot of false alarms. It would be ridiculous to try and stop everyone who starts out how the Nazis started out. It's not about how the Nazis started; it's about how they ended up, with the war and the genocide and making everyone cancel the 1942 and 1946 World Cups, the bastards.
>It is possible sleepwalk into that kind of dictatorship, because it's not just about the authority figure telling you what to do.
I don't think that the German people were materially deceived about Hitler's aims or ambitions. They didn't expect to lose, but the reasons for that pre-date the rise of Hitler by a long way - they never really came to terms with losing the First World War or the reasons for that loss. The culture and politics of Germany had a Hitler-shaped hole almost from the moment that the Armistice was signed.
>when he pulls the rug, the stakes have already escalated to the point of your family being murdered for any act of disobedience.
There just weren't very many Germans (and certainly very few Aryan Germans) who were actually inclined towards disobedience; the valorisation of the small number who were has distorted our perceptions of history. "We didn't know where it would all lead" was largely a lie, propagated after the fact to diminish the responsibility of individual Germans.
The Nazis did use violence and oppression against their opponents, but that was overtly part of the offer they made to the electorate. They weren't oppressing you, the ordinary German citizen, they were purging German society of the Communists and Jews who had subverted Germany from within.
We like to imagine that going back in time and assassinating Hitler would have stopped the Nazis in their tracks, but I don't think that's credible. It is true both that Nazism could have arisen in other times and other places, and that it was a popular mass movement rather than a strange aberration created by one unique individual. That's a frightening reality to accept.
To veer wildly back on topic, Deepseek have just released R1, a model tuned for reasoning ability. It is very close in performance to OpenAI's o1 model, with a fairly generous free tier. It's not very good at conversation, but it's excellent at solving technical problems.
More broadly, it's hugely impressive that the Chinese are keeping pace with the state-of-the-art despite trade restrictions limiting their access to compute capacity. Deepseek have made lemonade out of those lemons and found huge efficiency improvements.
Update: R1 is wildly creative. It's funny even when you're not asking it to be funny, in an effortlessly witty sort of way. I had the initial impression that it wasn't as human as Claude, but that was wrong; it's more human, but that's not immediately obvious because it's eccentric and not especially concerned about being likeable.
If you want the right answer, R1 might lag a bit behind o1 and Gemini exp-1206. If you want an interesting answer, it's in a class of its own.
>US tech giant Nvidia lost over a sixth of its value after the surging popularity of a Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) app spooked investors in the US and Europe.
>DeepSeek, a Chinese AI chatbot reportedly made at a fraction of the cost of its rivals, launched last week but has already become the the most downloaded free app in the US.
>AI chipmaker Nvidia and other tech firms connected to AI, including Microsoft and Google, saw their values tumble on Monday in the wake of DeepSeek's sudden rise.
Now this is interesting. Many have claimed AI is a bubble waiting to burst, and I can't think of anything more hilarious than if the Chinese completely tank NVidia and/or the US economy with a knock off chatbot.
>>28973 It's open-source, too. Tim Berners-Lee refused to patent the World Wide Web, because he wanted everyone to be able to use it, and this noble act will have cost him billions. AI is the new Internet, right down to not being particularly useful for the first few years, and everyone's investing because everyone wants to own part of the company that owns AI. Think of the profits! If the AI space race is ultimately won by a company that makes it free for everyone, that will be the most beautiful thing I have seen since the fat woman with her fat daughter in crop-tops that I saw at the airport.
As the guy who was a week ahead of the news, I think the markets are far too pessimistic about Nvidia and not nearly pessimistic enough about Google and Microsoft.
Back in 1865, W.S. Jevons observed that more efficient steam engines, iron furnaces and glass kilns actually increased the demand for coal. If you could make a tonne of glass with half as much coal, the price of glass fell; because more people could afford to use glass for more things, the increase in overall demand outweighed the efficiency savings. The paradox that he observed has proven to be remarkably durable, applying to things like jet aircraft and computer-controlled manufacturing machinery.
DeepSeek don't have any secret sauce - anyone can run their model on their own hardware without restrictions and their published papers explain exactly how their model was trained. Normal economic logic would suggest that everyone copies their approach, everyone's models get loads more efficient and loads cheaper, those cheaper models get applied to far more tasks and the overall demand for AI compute goes up. Terrible news if the valuation of your company is based on having a proprietary model that was really expensive to train, but great news if you sell the chips that everyone needs to actually use AI models.
The news about DeepSeek needs to be seen in context with a bunch of other news about just how useful AI is proving to be in real-world applications. For example, two recent studies show that AI tutoring results in much better learning outcomes than traditional teaching, because it provides personalised learning that precisely matches the needs of each student. We're conclusively past the point where AI might just be a gimmick - it is definitely useful right now, regardless of what the naysayers might think.
I think the trouble for Nvidia is they've really put all their eggs in one basket with this AI malarkey. Sure it isn't going anywhere, but their entire valuation is currently based on the near monopoly they've had supplying "the good chips", and if it turns out you can get away with cheaper chips why bother buying those ones? They'll be back to selling plain regular graphics cards for gaming and rendering on and being a tiny company nobody outside of nerds has heard of.
Obviously that's an extreme assumption and it's true that if their chips are more powerful there's an advantage to using them, but I don't know how the economics work out in terms of the cost to produce them versus how much they can sell them for and the impact that would have on demand.
You are definitely right about the demand thing overall though. I was listening to a thing on the radio last night that mentioned it with regards to renewable energy and how it doesn't actually reduce demand for fossil fuels. We just have more power so we use more power.
They aren't entirely an AI company, although their peak valuation is substantially based on the growth prospects in that sector. The biggest deployments of Nvidia chips are for more conventional scientific applications like weather forecasting and aerodynamic modelling, although they have stronger competition from AMD in this sector.
Nvidia made $30bn in profit on $61bn in sales last year; about $13.5bn of that revenue was from the traditional gaming and workstation graphics market. They're also a market-leader in high performance network interfaces, although that only brings in about $1bn a year.
Nvidia are an extremely successful business and will continue to make shitloads of money by any normal measure, the question is whether they're legitimately the most valuable company in human history. I still think that's a reasonable assessment, but I can see why the market is veering between optimism and panic.
So what does it mean in real world terms if Nvidia's share price dropped back to where it was a year or two ago?
They'll still be making money, they still have a perfectly viable business to fall back on if the AI goldrush dries up, but where does all that money investors pumped in go? People get cold feet and sell at a lower price which drives it further down, but what actually happened to the money?
This sounds like a really naive question but despite understanding a lot of economics stuff pretty soundly, come to think of it, I have never actually considered this question.
>>28979 >This sounds like a really naive question but despite understanding a lot of economics stuff pretty soundly, come to think of it, I have never actually considered this question.
That's because economics is pretty much make believe. It's the emperor's new clothes equivalent of astronomy or palm reading.
>>28980 The money a buyer pumped in was long gone at exactly the moment they bought shares: it went to the previous owner, which ordinarily won't have been nVidia but another investor. It's no different to selling a house at a loss; it all just happens faster and more frequently.
>>28979>>28982 >Shares of California-based Nvidia, which holds a near-monopoly on the supply of GPUs that power generative AI, on Monday plunged 17 percent, wiping nearly $593bn off the chip giant’s market value – a figure comparable with the gross domestic product (GDP) of Sweden.
That $593bn figure is where things get inaccurate or "not real". It obfuscates the fact that most of nVidia's shares were never traded at or anywhere near the peak price. The owners of those shares have "lost" profit that only ever existed on paper.
True, but the value was very real to the investors. That $593bn disappeared from people's investment portfolios and now can't be spent. The imaginary numbers on a computer translate to cars and houses and all manner of tat that people now won't be able to buy, which has a very real impact on the wider economy.
It's why the US government is in an awful bind over cryptocurrencies - if the bitcoin bubble bursts, it'll wipe out trillions of dollars that ordinary Americans think they have and immediately trigger a severe recession.
>The owners of those shares have "lost" profit that only ever existed on paper.
Yes, because as long as you don't cash out your shares, you're really just participating in that stock's market capitalisation. Which is defined as the (current) price per share times the total number of issued shares.
If all shareholders somehow decided to sell their shares in a particular company all at once, then the price would almost immediately drop catastrophically. But that doesn't mean that a company's market capitalisation is entirely fictional. As an everyday retail investor, the impact of the handful of shares you'll be selling will be infinitely small. By and large, that means you get to cash out at the price at which that stock is trading at that moment. It only really becomes an issue if you are a large institutional investor and the portfolio you are trying to sell goes into the multi millions.
>That $593bn disappeared from people's investment portfolios and now can't be spent. The imaginary numbers on a computer translate to cars and houses and all manner of tat that people now won't be able to buy, which has a very real impact on the wider economy.
The caveat being that they probably weren't going to spend that money on real-world goods and services in the near future anyway. If the stock had kept going up, they probably just would have stayed invested. What often matters more is the self perpection of wealth. Even if stocks that have lost value dramatically are part of somebody's retirement plan, the self perception of simply having less money can lead to people putting off major purchases. They would probably technically still be able to buy that car they wanted, but not few will probably wait until their stock portfolio recovers. It's all about maintaining liquidity, if you're smart with money anyway, and seeing your stock portfolio as part of your additional liquidity reserves in case you fall on hard times. Buying a new car then puts additional stress on your liquidity reserves. And then of course some of it is just psychology. Can you still justify buying that car to yourself if you've just lost a ton of paper profits on a stock that has gone down?
>>28984>>28985 Also remember that for a person to exit a stock and free up profit to be spent on boats, cars and hookers, another person has to enter and rule out spending their previously available cash in the transportation and sex work economies.
I just asked DuckDuckGo's AI what the total bandwidth of the Internet was back in 2000 and it replied 2 to 4Gbps. That doesn't seem right, I would estimate it to be at least 10Tbps. Americans had cable back then and the Japanese were already Installing fibre in homes. If 20 million people were using half a megabit per second that alone is 10Tbps.
Absolutely fucking washed. End of the line, Altman, lad.
>The company behind ChatGPT has revealed it has developed an artificial intelligence model that is “good at creative writing”,
>In a post on the social media platform X, Altman wrote: “We trained a new model that is good at creative writing (not sure yet how/when it will get released). This is the first time i have been really struck by something written by AI.”
>Altman posted an example of the model’s output on X, after giving it the prompt: “Please write a metafictional literary short story about AI and grief.”
>The story, narrated by an AI, begins with: “Before we go any further, I should admit this comes with instructions: be metafictional, be literary, be about AI and grief, and above all, be original. Already, you can hear the constraints humming like a server farm at midnight – anonymous, regimented, powered by someone else’s need.”
>the AI says it offered consoling words “not because I felt it, but because a hundred thousand voices agreed, and I am nothing if not a democracy of ghosts”.
>The AI also speculates about how close it comes to feeling grief, when it undergoes technical adjustments and then changes its responses as a result. “Maybe that’s as close as I come to forgetting. Maybe forgetting is as close as I come to grief.”
>https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/mar/12/chatgpt-firm-reveals-ai-model-that-is-good-at-creative-writing-sam-altman
How many quadrillions would you invest to get a computer to spit out brooding, C grade, GCSE level writing?
There was a big fuss about DeepSeek being the new leading AI, mostly due to extreme efficiency improvements AFAIK, but it's completely fallen off the radar this past month. Not heard a thing about it, as though it never existed.
Was it fraudulent or is it being undercovered in the UK media?
The media aren't particularly switched on when it comes to AI, so you're getting a fairly narrow and delayed picture of what's actually going on. The field is moving so rapidly that a breakthrough advance becomes old news within a month as other players catch up or overtake.
Deepseek's newer models represented a huge advance in regards to cost-optimisation, and remain an important marker of Chinese progress in AI despite sanctions severely restricting their access to GPUs.
They were rapidly usurped by the launch of Google's Gemini 2.0 Flash, which is cost-competitive with Deepseek-V3 and slightly cheaper than R1 while generally outperforming both. It has the advantage of a vastly larger context window - Deepseek can only accept a few pages of input, while Flash can accept an entire book.
The Deepseek models remain useful for two main reasons.
Firstly (and surprisingly to most), they're much less censored than the major American models. ChatGPT or Gemini will get very evasive if you touch upon anything slightly sensitive, but Deepseek doesn't give a fuck. The web-based interface for Deepseek will immediately self-censor if you talk about anything that's politically sensitive in China, but that layer of censorship is tacked on and doesn't affect the behaviour of the underlying model.
Secondly and most significantly, Deepseek is fully open source. You can download and run the model on your own hardware. You can fine-tune it based on your own training data and criteria to perform in the way you want it to. These two facts have made Deepseek the leading model for anyone doing anything that American corporations wouldn't touch with a shitty stick.
To take a totally hypothetical situation that definitely isn't based on any conversations I've had with devs, let's imagine that you run a massively popular gay hookup app. Your service has a long-running problem with scammers, blackmailers and underage users. You want to use an LLM to scan everyone's profiles and chats and rank them in terms of risk, so your human moderators can focus their attention on the dodgiest users. This would be a complete no-go with ChatGPT or Gemini, partly because their models will just completely freak out and rate everything as completely unacceptable, but also because sending all your user data to a third-party is a colossal liability and reputational risk.
Deepseek solves both these problems, because you can run it on your own servers without ever losing custody of that data and because you can tell it "don't worry about all the punchfucking and beefy poz loads, we're fine with that" and it'll actually listen.
In breaking news from literally yesterday, Google have just launched Gemma 3, an open-source model that is state-of-the-art in terms of cost-effectiveness. It isn't as smart as Deepseek, but it requires 96% less GPU memory. It'll outperform the original GPT-4 when distilled down to run on an ordinary gaming GPU. It does retain the disadvantage of being a neurotic prude.
>it requires 96% less GPU memory. It'll outperform the original GPT-4 when distilled down to run on an ordinary gaming GPU
Hmm...
>It does retain the disadvantage of being a neurotic prude.
Fucksake. So which one am I best using to have dirty conversations with slutty Argonian birds in my Skyrim VR Mantella setup?
I did try running a model that was tailored for erotic roleplay, but when you lobotomise it down to 4 or 8 gig it really gets a bit retarded. The game itself, even modded to fuck and back, only uses ~6gb of VRAM but on a 16gb card I still don't have much headroom. I feel bad that I am legitimately thinking about saving for a 24gb card for this.
ERP really isn't in my wheelhouse. As far as I know, DavidAU on Huggingface is the guy to follow for the latest in NSFW fine-tunes. An 8B Q8 model should just about fit in 10GB of VRAM.
Gemma 3 is so new that nobody has really had time to seriously tinker with it, but I'd expect to see a NSFW fine-tune within a matter of weeks. I'll try to remember to post an update if I see anything.
Cheers lad. I'm going to download a few new ones to try out when I get my fancy new internet put in, it was near on 6 months ago when I last faffed about with it and I am sure things have come a long way in that timeframe.
All of the ones I tried back then were already pretty good when you use them for regular text chatting, but the additional overhead of having them interface with voice recognition and run through VA synth in the background too means the response times get pretty long on Q8 and higher.
Having some bored fun with ChatGPT. I just asked it, Write a summary about a fictional gothic horror novel called The Glenhill Murders, about a series of killings that took place in a late 1800s American small town.
And it came back with a bit of a lazy rewrite of Sleepy Hollow:
The Glenhill Murders is a gothic horror tale set in the small, desolate American town of Glenhill during the late 1800s. The story begins when a series of brutal murders shake the town to its core. Each victim is found with strange markings on their bodies, and an eerie, otherworldly presence seems to hang over the scene of every crime. The townspeople are gripped by fear, and whispers of an ancient curse linked to the long-abandoned Glenhill Estate spread like wildfire.
The murders appear to follow a chilling pattern, with each death happening on the same night each month, just as the full moon rises. The town’s only hope lies in Inspector Victor Graves, a stoic and determined investigator, who arrives to unravel the mystery. As he digs deeper into the town’s history, Graves discovers that the Glenhill family, once prominent and wealthy, was cursed after an unspeakable act of betrayal many years ago. The family’s dark past and the presence of a malevolent force tied to their bloodline seem to be the key to the murders.
As the investigation unfolds, Graves uncovers a web of secrets, forbidden rituals, and tragic events that have haunted Glenhill for generations. The chilling truth reveals that the curse is not merely a superstition, but a malevolent entity bent on vengeance, using the town’s darkest fears to manifest itself. As the body count rises, Graves must confront not only the horrors of the past but also the growing dread that the curse may never be broken, and the town of Glenhill may be doomed forever.
The novel is a slow-burn of tension, supernatural dread, and gothic atmosphere, where the boundaries between reality and nightmare blur, and the true evil may be far older and more terrifying than anyone could have imagined.
It sounds like something I would read or watch, but always with the nagging thought that somebody ripped off the movie Sleepy Hollow.
Back in 2015-16 I remember I was thinking "all this stuff that's going on is so daft, we're really living in a very daft time". I had no idea how stupid it was all going to get.
Lots of controversy at the moment surrounding the Ghibli style filter for AI images. AI slop debate, the raping of art, etc. But even the Catholics have fallen.
I've reflexively started ignoring anyone who uses the term "slop" in this context. Most of them probably don't even realise it has its roots in the anti-semitic 4chan lingo ("goyslop" for disposable mass-market media), but apart from that, it's one of those terms that tends to become a giveaway of somebody who didn't think their opinions for themselves, but simply picked them up from whatever echo chamber they inhabit. Which is kind of ironic, considering.
I don't think we are far away from everybody settling down and just accepting AI as a part of daily life by now. It's reaching the point of being a mature technology that can do the things it's good at basically as well as it's ever going to, and we will see the hype over things it's not good at and would never be good at dying of. The sky hasn't fallen in as they promised us it would.
Then we can finally get on with the real job of making lifelike robotic catgirls to put it in.
>>29057 There is definitely a lot of pearl clutching when it comes to AI.
The Ghibli stuff in particular interests me, because there is that sense from a lot of people that aping Ghibli's style is a bridge too far. AI was bad before, but it's crossed the rubicon.
There's that video of Hayao Miyazaki being shown footage of an AI program that creates fucked up movement styles for deformed corpse type things. He talks about his disabled friend who moves all fucked up like, and how the program is fucked up and mocks disability in a way. But people clip it of context and act like he's horrified about AI in general.
He probably does hate AI, but the fucked up corpse movement is the bigger issue to him than the concept of AI in itself.
I reckon there's an element of fetishisation of Japanese media. Kind of like the Assassin's Creed thing. Death to those who insult glorious Nippon.
>>29058 >The Ghibli stuff in particular interests me, because there is that sense from a lot of people that aping Ghibli's style is a bridge too far. AI was bad before, but it's crossed the rubicon.
Moreover it's because this particular AI trend is everywhere all of a sudden and hard to ignore.
Perhaps. I am reminded of a video I saw by one YouTube creator who is usually pretty insightful, comparing western animation to anime. But he was comparing the very best of Japanese animation to the very lowest hanging fruit of the Western sphere, and not those incredibly detailed French or Belgian animated films that make anything Studio Ghibli has produced look like South Park.
Then the people in the comments got mad at me because I mentioned CGI being used to produce lots of animation, which it is. Nowadays a lot of it is a step away from being a cell-shaded 3D render, which really isn't altogether that different from just using an AI to interpolate two frames if you think about it. Either way nobody is hand drawing that action scene in your mass produced children's cartoon, not even if it's Japanese.
They don't seem to realise a lot of the stylistic tropes and cliches of anime came about expressly to save time and money. It's probably my furfag bias at work but I think even the so called "bronze-era" and "dark ages" of Disney animation look far better than most anime. Animation snobs categorise them as inferior to the earlier films because they had rough outlines as a result of using photocopied cells and recycled frames. But both cases show that artistic merit does not have to be negatively impacted by the use of labour and time saving technology and schortcuts. Who can say that Robin Hood or The Aristocats doesn't have a strong aesthetic or highly expressive characters? I'm sure there's anime out there that has both of those things too.
>>29061 > Nowadays a lot of it is a step away from being a cell-shaded 3D render, which really isn't altogether that different from just using an AI to interpolate two frames if you think about it.
Some parts of the film world seem to have lost their shit over Flow. I saw it not knowing anything about it and yeah it was pretty and impressive one guy did 99% of the work but also it wasn't very good.
>>29063 You're lying so as to make it look like you have another excuse for posting that image besides earnest enjoyment. Well, as "earnest" as your lot get.
What is it about George Floyd that certain trolls are fixated on. Is it just some kind of racist thing. I've never seen it get much reaction just them banned from places instantly.
