EldritchFeminity

On the one hand, yes, and Fandom is a blight on the internet.

On the other hand, AI like ChatGPT are wrong some 53% of the time. The fact that this is another "use nontoxic glue to keep your cheese from falling off of pizza" situation doesn't mean that Google isn't equally culpable for doing nothing to prevent these sorts of occurrences even when the sources are right (AI is as likely to make things up that aren't even in its cited sources as it is to actually give you info from them).

There's definitely studies on it. I don't know how they measure them, but it's all about the number and type of cones in your eyes because there are a few different types that see different colors. This is why tigers are orange - because their prey lack the cones that see red, so the tigers look like the rest of the background foliage.

I've heard that women have more cones in their eyes as well, which leads to a more nuanced sense of differentiation between colors.

Another Millennial here, so take that how you will, but I agree. I think that Gen Z is very tech literate, but only in specific areas that may not translate to other areas of competency that are what we think of when we say "tech savvy" - especially when you start talking about job skills.

I think Boomers especially see anybody who can work a smartphone as some sort of computer wizard, while the truth is that Gen Z grew up with it and were immersed in the tech, so of course they're good with it. What they didn't grow up with was having to type on a physical keyboard and monkey around with the finer points of how a computer works just to get it to do the thing, so of course they're not as skilled at it.

Because we're talking pattern recognition levels of learning. At best, they're the equivalent of parrots mimicking human speech. They take inputs and output data based on the statistical averages from their training sets - collaging pieces of their training into what they think is the right answer. And I use the word think here loosely, as this is the exact same process that the Gaussian blur tool in Photoshop uses.

This matters in the context of the fact that these companies are trying to profit off of the output of these programs. If somebody with an eidetic memory is trying to sell pieces of works that they've consumed as their own - or even somebody copy-pasting bits from Clif Notes - then they should get in trouble; the same as these companies.

Given A and B, we can understand C. But an LLM will only be able to give you AB, A(b), and B(a). And they've even been just spitting out A and B wholesale, proving that they retain their training data and will regurgitate the entirety of copyrighted material.

Slaanesh and Tzeentch approve of this action.

My nebulous understanding is that there's no specific reason saying that women can't be space marines, but I assume that it's probably tradition since all the Primarchs are male. But I do remember hearing that one of the key people in the program that created the Primarchs was upset that they were all men because there was no reason that they couldn't have been women other than "because the Emperor said so."

IIRC, Twitter had this issue as well (or was it Tumblr?), and they "solved it" by posting that constantly on Disney images so that the bots were infringing on Disney's copyrighted characters. I don't know if it actually did anything, but it was always funny to think of the mouse coming down hard on the chuds who ran those bots.

Reminds me of when I read about a programmer getting turned down for a job because they didn't have 5 years of experience with a language that they themselves had created 1 to 2 years prior.

The argument that these models learn in a way that's similar to how humans do is absolutely false, and the idea that they discard their training data and produce new content is demonstrably incorrect. These models can and do regurgitate their training data, including copyrighted characters.

And these things don't learn styles, techniques, or concepts. They effectively learn statistical averages and patterns and collage them together. I've gotten to the point where I can guess what model of image generator was used based on the same repeated mistakes that they make every time. Take a look at any generated image, and you won't be able to identify where a light source is because the shadows come from all different directions. These things don't understand the concept of a shadow or lighting, they just know that statistically lighter pixels are followed by darker pixels of the same hue and that some places have collections of lighter pixels. I recently heard about an ai that scientists had trained to identify pictures of wolves that was working with incredible accuracy. When they went in to figure out how it was identifying wolves from dogs like huskies so well, they found that it wasn't even looking at the wolves at all. 100% of the images of wolves in its training data had snowy backgrounds, so it was simply searching for concentrations of white pixels (and therefore snow) in the image to determine whether or not a picture was of wolves or not.