Ok fair I was a little harsh, I just think it's gone way too far and gotten way too intrusive in day to day life. Humanity has made it 6,000 years without it, we don't need it now
Things That Are on Your Mind
- Thread starter Johnny Sooshi
- Start date
A little more than that, maybe.
Fraxinus
chunky plant goop
Irrelevant to the statement he was making, maybe.
Link&Midna
I stand with Growling
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2021
- Gender
- walrus
It's useful in some cases, but the recent and rapid development of ai is starting to creep me out a bit. I'd always thought ai could never be that intelligent, but Ive been seeing some lately, some that are usable by the general public even, that are getting way too intelligent for my liking lmao. In the past I've ruled out a lot as impossible, but with the insane development of tech in general since the 80s/90s, I'm beginning to think a lot more is possible than before, like, if sentient ai were to pop up now I wouldn't even be that surprised, and I don't know whether to like or hate that
Fraxinus
chunky plant goop
This isn't something I really gave much thought to until today when I was out taking pictures, but I think we underestimate how much artificial intelligence is already active in art. I mean I prefer having my lenses set to manual focus because I don't trust the auto focus to focus on what I'm intending to, but even something as simple as the auto focus is some form of AI, in that it is programmed to focus on objects. And just like other forms of AI, the auto focus technology has improved a lot, it's certainly a lot more reliable and faster for practical use. But that doesn't mean photographers who utilize auto focus are less responsible for their photographs than those who don't. Hell, leaving any setting on auto is letting the camera decide for you. I usually let it determine my ISO for me and usually it does a good job; very few times have I had to adjust the ISO manually afterward because I didn't like what the camera decided for my shot.
Similarly, digital artists who utilize bitmap tracing/live tracing are allowing AI to interpret the scan of their pencil drawing and converting it into lineart. And again, this technology has improved drastically over time. Usually this involves fine tuning what the AI has interpreted afterward, but there are a lot of stuff like that in the creation process now that aren't particularly controversial.
But I guess the difference here is that the artist is still the one in control, or the one creating.
Similarly, digital artists who utilize bitmap tracing/live tracing are allowing AI to interpret the scan of their pencil drawing and converting it into lineart. And again, this technology has improved drastically over time. Usually this involves fine tuning what the AI has interpreted afterward, but there are a lot of stuff like that in the creation process now that aren't particularly controversial.
But I guess the difference here is that the artist is still the one in control, or the one creating.
Last edited:
Decided to do a bit of internet research and this article just says about 6,000:
The Fullness of Time: The Timeline between Adam and Jesus
How many years passed between Adam and Jesus? Does the Bible really support that the earth is only 6000 years old?
www.blogos.org
But this timeline leads me to believe that it hasn't even been 6,000 years, more like 5,997:
TIMELINE FROM GENESIS TO JESUS | biblechristiansofgod
www.biblechristiansofgod.com
ironically this just helps chevy's point b/c humanity has gone through so much longer w/o AI
Turo602
Vocare Ad Pugnam
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Location
- Gotham City
With AI, we'll go on 10,000 more years.
Ragnarokio
AVATAR NOT BY JIMMU
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2018
- Gender
- If you don't identify as the default options of Male/Female, you may enter your gender here.
there are theologians who seek to find a biblical interpretation that is both faithful to the scripture and doesn't contradict academic consensus.
I don't know a lot about theology, but this site seems to have some resources https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/
i post this only because i think it might be interesting to both the religious and non-religious folk here. Not seeking to disagree with anyone on anything.
hope u all have a wonderful day
I don't know a lot about theology, but this site seems to have some resources https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/
i post this only because i think it might be interesting to both the religious and non-religious folk here. Not seeking to disagree with anyone on anything.
hope u all have a wonderful day
Duude, Answers in Genesis is the best
Ah yes the good old days without "artificial intelligence" (in quotes because learning algorithms aren't the same as a sentient one). Bless the days where most people had to work themselves to death in cramped factories while underage screwing parts.
Who needs algorithms consistently improving our quality of life doing calculations on what's the most comfortable, healthy, or efficient way to create a products, medicines, or safety measures.
Yes, who cares if the first computers were create to crack codes to prevent many deaths in wars? Times were better when we didn't have automated anti-missile defenses to keep us safe from wars able to erase entire continents.
Even people of faith in a high religious hierarchy make sure to often voice that the Old Testament book, specially the Genesis, are parables and metaphors; so I really don't understand why some people still take it so literally.
And Newton's capabilities as a physicist does not mean he's a competent archeologist or historian. Just because a person is a genius in some areas it doesn't mean they were such a prodigy in every science. Newton was amazing at describing how nature phenomenas worked, not at dating stuff.
Do you truly believe all archeologists and historians around the world, that deal with evidence of ancient times on a daily basis, with physical fossils and objects, are lying? All linguists? All biologists? Every single machine that is able to make carbon measurements?
Who needs algorithms consistently improving our quality of life doing calculations on what's the most comfortable, healthy, or efficient way to create a products, medicines, or safety measures.
Yes, who cares if the first computers were create to crack codes to prevent many deaths in wars? Times were better when we didn't have automated anti-missile defenses to keep us safe from wars able to erase entire continents.
I'll never understand the fetishization of religion of using pseudo-science in attempts to validate their theories. If it's a matter of faith just say it's a matter of faith instead of trying to find something to call evidence.Decided to do a bit of internet research and this article just says about 6,000:
.The Fullness of Time: The Timeline between Adam and Jesus
How many years passed between Adam and Jesus? Does the Bible really support that the earth is only 6000 years old?www.blogos.org
But this timeline leads me to believe that it hasn't even been 6,000 years, more like 5,997:
TIMELINE FROM GENESIS TO JESUS | biblechristiansofgod
Even people of faith in a high religious hierarchy make sure to often voice that the Old Testament book, specially the Genesis, are parables and metaphors; so I really don't understand why some people still take it so literally.
And Newton's capabilities as a physicist does not mean he's a competent archeologist or historian. Just because a person is a genius in some areas it doesn't mean they were such a prodigy in every science. Newton was amazing at describing how nature phenomenas worked, not at dating stuff.
Do you truly believe all archeologists and historians around the world, that deal with evidence of ancient times on a daily basis, with physical fossils and objects, are lying? All linguists? All biologists? Every single machine that is able to make carbon measurements?
Last edited:
There was a time period between the factories and the advent of ai, it's called the 1900's, and not to mention the 1000's of years that the most advanced technology was a wagon
Healthy is the only really valid one there, and people have brains, they can figure it out
Yeah because we didn't have the missles then either
Not lying, but misinformed. The site that Ragnarokio linked is part of a great organization that really lays out how science backs up the Biblical accounts, but it's been a while since I've studied their stuff so I can't pull anything off the top of my head atm.
The Dashing Darknut
DD, the dashing one
Probably best not turn this into a religion debate, if it’s going there.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
Saying that humans have survived most of their existence without AI means that they don't need it is kinda like saying they lived for hundreds of thousands of years without electricity so we don't need it now. I do think some technology is getting to be a bit far, but that's just my personal taste. Mainly because I feel like companies are using it to invade privacy. Which is less about the technology and more about the greediness of humans. I do miss when I was a kid in the 90s and there wasn't such a reliance on technology sometimes. But I do also like a lot of what we have now.
The biggest potential issue I see with AI created art is if it gets to the point where it can copy artists' work and mass create it for profit. But I think that's an issue we already have anyways with greedy companies. We may get to a point where AI generated art is just seen as another form of art. It does take coding by an actual human after all.
Without advances in technology none of us would be here discussing this right now. We wouldn't even know about each other. Technology can open as many positive doors and even more as it can negative ones.
The biggest potential issue I see with AI created art is if it gets to the point where it can copy artists' work and mass create it for profit. But I think that's an issue we already have anyways with greedy companies. We may get to a point where AI generated art is just seen as another form of art. It does take coding by an actual human after all.
Without advances in technology none of us would be here discussing this right now. We wouldn't even know about each other. Technology can open as many positive doors and even more as it can negative ones.
Yall really need to stop reading what people say in a hostile tone. Apparently it's fine for people to bring up their religion but asking them anything about it is forbidden.
I asked questions because I'm legit curious about how he sees things. Can't I try to understand why people of faith sometimes try so hard to show evidence of stuff that comes from faith? Can I not ask someone why they take the Genesis so literally?
And can I not point out stuff that doesn't make sense to me? Can I not remind people that a person being good at physics doesn't mean they're good at history? Can I not point out that most religious figures do not have the same view as them? Can I not point all multiple benefits algorithms and automation has done to us in recent times?
C'mon.
He can have his faith, noone is trying to change that. If he believes the Earth is a week old and sprouted on a turtle's back, so be it; I'll still ask why he thinks that and what he thinks of other people's consensus.
I asked questions because I'm legit curious about how he sees things. Can't I try to understand why people of faith sometimes try so hard to show evidence of stuff that comes from faith? Can I not ask someone why they take the Genesis so literally?
And can I not point out stuff that doesn't make sense to me? Can I not remind people that a person being good at physics doesn't mean they're good at history? Can I not point out that most religious figures do not have the same view as them? Can I not point all multiple benefits algorithms and automation has done to us in recent times?
C'mon.
He can have his faith, noone is trying to change that. If he believes the Earth is a week old and sprouted on a turtle's back, so be it; I'll still ask why he thinks that and what he thinks of other people's consensus.
This site is literally not about that.