/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15747595]

Physics Phd student complains about plot that looks like Vagina

[Anonymous No.15747605]

>>15747595
no self advertising

[Anonymous No.15747607]

>>15747595
built for bsc

[Anonymous No.15747611]

>>15747595
her vagina looks like this?

[Anonymous No.15747612]

Buy an ad.

[Anonymous No.15747959]

>>15747607
Big spic cock?

[Anonymous No.15747961]

>>15747595
>muh vagina
every woman ever
How do we fix them bros?

[Anonymous No.15747994]

>>15747595
>Physics Phd student complains about plot that looks like Vagina

Watched this a couple hours ago in the background:
She isn't wrong to complain, but she's overreacting in a way that's probably worse than the initial event she's complaining about.

Quick summary:
She was the only woman in a meeting to discuss some paper and it had hourglass diagrams. One younger guy in the group didn't read the dossier in advanced and so he was slowing down the group and reading it as they went a long. When they get to the hourglass diagram page he awkwardly laughed and said it looked like a vagina. When nobody laughed he said it again, but louder. Nobody laughed and they awkwardly moved on.

I understand where the guy is coming from: he made an attempt at humor to try and dissolve the tension and annoyance of him not having done the homework, but it fell flat and spaghetti was spilled. I also understand the insufferable woman's reaction because I've had to babysit plenty of dumb, unfunny, cunts in my life.
But it's fucking wild because for her there's absolutely no path to de-escalation from this event. Like, she treats it as if she was black and stranger awkwardly called her a "niggah".

[Anonymous No.15748013]

>>15747994
alright come clean, which /sci/ autist was this?

[Anonymous No.15748017]

>>15747611
Nah, that's the trans version.

[Anonymous No.15748019]

>>15747595
I wouldn't know because I've never seen a vagina.

[Anonymous No.15748526]

>>15748017
Well she is trans so

[Anonymous No.15748544]

>>15747994
While there are plenty of spergs in the world, I'd lay even odds on her fantasizing that any of that actually happened.

[Anonymous No.15748548]

>meanwhile men when they see a graph that looks like a penis

[Anonymous No.15748644]

women thrive on bringing men down

[Anonymous No.15748650]

>>15747595
It's amazing how the existence of a female youtuber is enough to bait you retards, anyway, buy an ad

[Anonymous No.15748653]

>>15747961
> How do we fix them
By sending them back to the kitchen.
>>15748548
women ruin the fun

[Anonymous No.15748698]

>>15747994
>stupid guy tells unfunny joke and it's not funny
>42 minute video

[Anonymous No.15749154]

>>15747595
she's right

[Anonymous No.15749158]

>>15748698
People have made longer yt videos about less desu

[Anonymous No.15749166]

>>15747595
I'd be down to see your violin plot.

[Anonymous No.15749172]

>>15748698
women are extremely self absorbed

[Anonymous No.15749182]

>>15748698
I think neurotic women like her see men just move on from cringe like that and think "wow, they're just letting that slide?!?!?!" without realizing that we do in fact take it into account in our opinions of others and it does have negative social consequences, but we don't need to talk everything through fucking constantly. We don't want to deal with drama, we just want to get things done.

You're still beautiful though, my queen.

[Anonymous No.15749214]

>be "feminist"
>see something that looks stereotypically female
>filled with pride?
>no outraged and offended
so she hates women and wishes she was born male
or in other words she envies those with penises
>be female
>what do i want to do with my life
>be a mommy or something else typically feminine?
>no i want to do jobs that men do

[Anonymous No.15749234]

YouTube removing the 10 minute limit was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.15749261]

>>15747595
Just make them one sided

[Anonymous No.15749267]

>>15747595
she has lost the plot

[Anonymous No.15749269]

>>15749261
female circumcision

[Anonymous No.15749285]

>>15749261
Boober

[Anonymous No.15749292]

>>15747595
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coxeter_group

>>15749261
nice boba sir.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.04976
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/forum-of-mathematics-sigma/article/on-the-titsweiss-conjecture-and-the-knesertits-conjecture-for-mathrm-e7871-and-mathrm-e7882-with-an-appendix-by-r-m-weiss/BA96C697C833167A625F0FEC545AB93A

[Anonymous No.15749303]

>>15749285
>>15749292
I guess we just deleted all distributions then

[Anonymous No.15749328]

>>15747595
I don't give a shit.

[Anonymous No.15749338]

>>15747595

[Anonymous No.15749371]

>>15747595
Le goblina

[Anonymous No.15749387]

>>15747595
this is the brain on coom, that said violin plots are really stupid.

[Anonymous No.15749388]

>>15747994
>>15748698
Man she would actually be watchable if she posted 10 min videos at least. Complaining about something as dumb as this for so long is just as bad. Okay, guy is an autist that said something stupid. Does she want him to get expelled and depersoned? I don't believe she never did something stupid or said something insensitive herself.

[Anonymous No.15749390]

>>15749387
Women are the biggest coom brainers out there, you know that.

[Anonymous No.15749453]

>>15747595
this ugly bitch keeps getting recommended to me. Its funny how she does an orgasm face on half her thumbnails to get views.

[Anonymous No.15749499]

>>15747595
The hallmark of a great physicist is when you're bike-shedding on youtube. Nobel when?

[Anonymous No.15749781]

>>15749338
wow
look at the size of that displaced threshold, its like about a quarter of the runway. i wonder whats that all about, doesn't look like theres a significant barrier to land over.

[Anonymous No.15749791]

>>15747994
>>15748698
Women are VERY intolerant of men on the autism spectrum.

[Anonymous No.15749815]

>>15747611
Looks like labia minora.
>>15747994
I would guess this doesn't happen in the bio department. It was an 8 minute rant on what happened and why it was awkward and the situation sucked, the rest was just complaints on why violin plots are bad. Having unwanted attention called to you over something retarded can make everything go downhill rapidly. They're looking to you to see how they're supposed to react, your face starts turning red, then the adrenaline of wanting to be anywhere but there. For her, it seems like it was just an anxiety attack. It's not like she went out of her way to make everything shitty and uncomfortable at the meeting for everyone else, she's talking about it in a video later. Why was "vagina" and "vulva" muted out of everything though?

[Anonymous No.15749851]

>>15748653
This is unironically the reason for why brotherhoods don't allow women. Or why they used to not be mixed earlier.
Just look at what drama women astronauts caused so far.

[Anonymous No.15749862]

>>15748698
that's her videos.
I tried watching her once because the algorithm loves shilling her videos to me and she just did not get to the point.

[Anonymous No.15749873]

I remember watching her "sexual harassment in academia" video and she talked about a guy touching a woman with his legs, giving her "the look" and going for a kiss as if it's something that scars you for life and makes you switch careers. God fuck females

[Anonymous No.15749890]

>>15749371
She's cute but annoying as fuck

[Anonymous No.15749909]

>>15749890
>She's cute
10/10 in muttmerica

[Anonymous No.15750070]

>>15747595

Don’t look up on Amazon for Trebino:
Frequency-Resolved Optical Gating: The Measurement of Ultrashort Laser Pulses

[Anonymous No.15750210]

>>15747959
Bachelors of science

[Anonymous No.15750238]

>>15749815
>Looks like labia minora
Bro it looks like herpes and freebleeding.

[Anonymous No.15751888]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_femininity

[Anonymous No.15751894]

>>15747595
in ages past, men concluded that women could only possibly be this retarded if they were witches and summoning evil spirits, and consequently were burned at the stake

we should probably continue this tradition

[Anonymous No.15751906]

Is this thread just full of baitposters and dumbfucks who didn't watch the video?

I'm like 30% in and she's exclusively shitting on the violin plots because they're bad at conveying data, and not the other retarded shit in this thread about sexism and it looking like a vag.

[Anonymous No.15751907]

>>15751894
/sci/ is pro women actually. Back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.15751912]

>>15751906
>I watched less than a third of the video so let me tell you what the entire video Is about.
Is this a troll?

[Anonymous No.15751913]

As with most scientists, as long as they're talking about something they has expertise in, it's good takes.

But when they veer outside their wheelhouse, they start saying some dumbass shit like: "AI doesn't exist because I define intelligence in this hyper specific way that I won't go into". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUrOxh_0leE

[Anonymous No.15751916]

>>15751912
Every single post in this thread is painting her video as saying the plots are bad because of sexism exclusively. The first 30% of the video disproves that.

[Anonymous No.15751918]

>>15751916
>every single
Get through the thread first, faggot

[Anonymous No.15751920]

[Anonymous No.15751927]

>>15751913
>AI learns from information
>since it learns from a computer, it doesn't exist
>AI does not exist
>how does Sally expect anyone to exist

[Anonymous No.15752054]

>>15751913

I think her video on Pluto and her video on Silicone Aliens are pretty good. Good enough I'd recommend them to other people. Her video on humanoid robots is also "pretty" good, but she loses the plot a little when her female brain thinks everybody who would want a humanoid robot servant is maybe a rapist.

I think her AI video wasn't too bad in the regard that she did an okay job explaing that our current "AI learning systems" are just really good pattern recognition software. Like, they don't have original thoughts. When an AI algorithm makes art it isn't making an original piece of artwork it's just scanning thousands and millions of pieces of artwork by other people and then producing the mean image or what-have-you.

>But when they veer outside their wheelhouse, they start saying some dumbass shit like:

She, ironically, did a video on that exact topic: Gell-Mann Amnesia.

[Anonymous No.15752058]

>>15751888
This is why women are allowed to vote now, because they're more than 80% democrat.

[Anonymous No.15752080]

>>15752054
>When an AI algorithm makes art it isn't making an original piece of artwork it's just scanning thousands and millions of pieces of artwork by other people and then producing the mean image or what-have-you.
I think that's an oversimplification. It's not so much average as it's applying specific knowledge about specific training data depending on the input. A similar story can be used to explain how our brain works when it decides to make art (training data then being all the art it's seen and all your life experiences), only there are a lot more steps and it's a lot more complicated. As these AI tools becomes more sophisticated it's going to be hard to draw some sort of hard difference between the two. All reductive arguments like "it's just computation", "it's just pattern recognition" can also be used to talk about the human brain -- unless you want to be a dualist.

[Anonymous No.15752087]

>>15752080
Or depending on the prompt* I should say.

[Anonymous No.15752094]

>>15752080
>All reductive arguments like "it's just computation", "it's just pattern recognition" can also be used to talk about the human brain -- unless you want to be a dualist.

I don't 100% even disagree, the fault in our stars with this kind of dialogue though is how important is it really to scrutinize the idea of just how original a human brain is vs a computer.
If you want a really "woo-woo" answer that isn't empirical or objective: at the end of the day I think the only meaningful difference between AI and Human art will eventually be the fact that a human brain can understand and develop Qualia and a computer can only synthetically replicate it, but never truly holistically feel it because we're not even sure it's real to begin with.

[Anonymous No.15752280]

>>15748698
Most of the video is "plot bad because you can't see shit", which is entirely true.

[Anonymous No.15752291]

>>15751913
But she is entirely right on this.
AI doesn't exist, it's a marketing term.

[Anonymous No.15752293]

>>15747595
>42 minutes
Alright, so where’s the beef? It can’t be just because it looks a certain way.

[Anonymous No.15752301]

>>15752094
AI does learn...emergence is an interesting concept

[Anonymous No.15752302]

>>15752080
>I think that's an oversimplification. It's not so much average as it's applying specific knowledge about specific training data depending on the input.
No, it's not. It's entirely accurate. It simply generates an arrangement of pixels that has the smallest average error, when associated with the prompt. Sure, the error function used may be more complicated than the humble RMSE by pretransforming some of the in-/outputs, but RMSE is still always somewhere in there, as it is the most convenient multivariate error function.

[Anonymous No.15752668]

I love her and I want to make her my wife

[Anonymous No.15753590]

Imagine if she had decided to be a gynecologist

[Anonymous No.15753603]

>>15751916
>exclusively
No, you interpret any criticism of a woman that way when anyone with reading comprehension skills can see you're full of fecal matter.

[Anonymous No.15753680]

>>15753590
>being the only woman in a professional space when vaginas are brought up
>being a woman in a professional space where the only thing you talk about are vaginas and things related to vaginas

[Anonymous No.15753860]

>>15752293
Her actual complaint was:
1) There's no reason for one plot to show the average of data AND the shape of the data because if the shape of the data is significant (e.g. the data is bimodal) then the average won't mean much anyway. And I guess it's implied vice-versa but idk if I agree with that.
2) The part of the plot that shows the data shape is hard to read because it doesn't include units or information about how the data was smoothed out (you can make two plots with the same data look really different by adjusting smoothness)
3) Apparently everyone who uses these plots also includes basic histograms alongside them which is sort of evidence of how useless they are.

[Anonymous No.15754007]

>>15747595
>Phd student
She's a postdoc.

[Anonymous No.15754815]

>ask classmates what they're researching
>male classmates are all researching fascinating, unique, or at least ambitious things
>woman: "Misogyny in Rome"
>woman: "Misogyny and Hamlet"
>woman: "The intersection of misogyny and periods in Hamlet"
>woman: "Women"
>woman: "Opinions about women having sex in Weimar newspapers"
>woman: "Women in the work of Robert Musil"
>woman: "Vagina"
>woman: "I have a vagina"
>woman: "I'm a woman btw. Vagina here"
>woman: "Sex and periods in gender"
>woman: "Woman perceptions of woman, ,vagina, cooters breasts woman period I'm on my period clitorises in the work of the band Oingo Boingo and Hamlet's Perception of Clitoris Vagina Gender Studies"
>woman: "Queering Gender in Medieval Manuscripts: Your period or MY period?"
>woman: "Misogyny, Periods, and You: Ernst Cassirer on Substance, Function, and My Gay Love Affair with Gender Studies"
>woman: "Women in 'Woman's Work': Gendering Gender in the Social Sciences"
>woman: "Prostitution and Gender in Antebellum Calcutta"
>woman: "Gender"
>woman: "Sex and gender studies"
>woman: "Tampons, pads, and ironclads: Stonewall Jackson and Freebleeding"
>woman: "Einstein contra Bergson: Who rapes me more by having existed?"

[Anonymous No.15754838]

>>15754815
Real question: how long did it take you to look all of these up for this post?

[Anonymous No.15754842]

>>15749261
Boa constrictor eating an elephant

[Anonymous No.15755103]

>>15754838
it's a copypasta so probably less than sixty seconds

[Anonymous No.15755265]

>>15749781
LUAW

[Anonymous No.15755273]

>>15754815
This shit doesn't seem real until you witness it irl

[Anonymous No.15755425]

>>15754815
kek, only female in my writing class last semester chose breastfeeding as the topic for her research paper (her thesis: even though breastfeeding is physically beneficial for the mother and the child, pointing this out is LE BAD because it makes "women" who can't breastfeed feel bad)

[Anonymous No.15755436]

>>15753590
i have never seen or heard of a female gyno
>inb4 posts a counterexample
i'm sure they exist, i'm just pointing out the fact that they seem to be so uncommon that you don't see them unless you're deliberately seeking them out

[Anonymous No.15756290]

>>15747994
>But it's fucking wild because for her there's absolutely no path to de-escalation from this event.
What, is she trying to get him fired?

[Anonymous No.15756439]

>>15755436
They make up over half of the practitioners in the field, and the AMA states that they make up about 85% of residents.
>you don't see them unless you're deliberately seeking them out
Why would you be seeking them or any gyno out?

[Anonymous No.15756500]

>>15756439
i have a wife, a mother, two sisters, and lots of aunts. gynos come up in conversation more that you'd think.

[Anonymous No.15756514]

>>15756500
Are they telling you directly that there are only male practitioners in your area, or are you having to go through provider lists for health insurance?

[Anonymous No.15756548]

>>15756439
Because he's a pussy

[Anonymous No.15756601]

>>15747595
I watched a video she made about AI and it was so unbelievably retarded.

[Anonymous No.15756614]

>>15756514
not explicitly, i just don't remember ever meeting or hearing of a female one.

[Anonymous No.15756616]

>>15752054
>When an AI algorithm makes art it isn't making an original piece of artwork it's just scanning thousands and millions of pieces of artwork by other people and then producing the mean image or what-have-you.
You are a retard who doesn't understand how the shit works. MANY such cases. It is of course producing something "original" because it's a unique image that has never been created before. It is not scanning (lol) a whole bunch of images and averaging them out you fucking retard! AI is not actually intelligence or thinking or conscious, it is just a computer algorithm - however, it has been trained on such an enormous amount of data over enough time that it actually internalizes concepts to a pretty high level of abstraction, in essentially the same way that a human brain does.
All the anti-AI retards don't even understand what they're throwing a tantrum about, they're just mad that it exists. They're just mad at the world for being the way it is. They're mad at facts.

[Anonymous No.15756621]

>>15752302
>It simply generates an arrangement of pixels that has the smallest average error, when associated with the prompt.
Yes but that is not in contradiction to an interpretation that states AI is making art and can produce things that are original.
You could make the same statement about the human brain, it's just synapses and electrical impulses following the laws of physics, therefore humans can't create real art. All these arguments are reductionist - deliberately missing the the bigger picture and trying to frame things in a "gotcha" kind of way. Arguing in bad faith or just being retarded (like the girl in the video).

[Anonymous No.15756622]

>>15754815
This is pretty close to real life, it's crazy

[Anonymous No.15756623]

>>15752080
You will:
1. Never understand how image generators work
2. Never understand how human creativity works
3. Never be fully human
You people are truly mental if you think a diffusion-based image generator imitating its training data is somehow analogous to real art.

[Anonymous No.15756627]

>>15756623
Give us a run-down on "real art"

[Anonymous No.15756633]

>>15756621
Reminder that """AI""" """art""" is completely mechanistic and dependent on the training data. You can feed it a million photos from real life and it will never generate anything as simple as a primitive cave drawing out of it, let alone develop a complex art style.

[Anonymous No.15756635]

>>15756627
See >>15756633. Your """AI""" doesn't produce art even if I grant you the extremely-watered down and dehumanized definition of "art" that your likes appeal to.

[Anonymous No.15756643]

>>15756614
Take a look at your provider list for ob/gyns, it should filter by sex. If nothing else, you'll know

[Anonymous No.15756647]

>>15756633
>Reminder that """AI""" """art""" is completely mechanistic and dependent on the training data.
No one needs reminding of that Captain Obvious.

>You can feed it a million photos from real life and it will never generate anything as simple as a primitive cave drawing out of it, let alone develop a complex art style.
What are you trying to say here? Obviously diffusion models can generate images better than primitive cave art.
Are you arguing that no AI will ever be able to generate images that look as good or better than real top artists? Because in a few years, they absolutely will.

>>15756635
I wouldn't argue that AI can create "real art", whatever definition you might use. Just like a photography camera can't create real art either right? It's just allowing light to enter into it and making an image out of it. It's just a tool, which artists can USE to create art. AI models are the same, they are a tool that humans can use to create art, like photoshop.

All these arguments are a waste of time because in 5-10 years everyone will think of them the same way we think of cameras and photoshop - advanced tools. Stay mad until then.

[Anonymous No.15756649]

>>15747994
She is a highly opinionated 117 IQ autistic physics savant. There’s nothing in that pretty head besides force*accleration diagrams. The full theory of her shallow mental depth was revealed to me in her stream where she "clears up", with the most pedestrian and simply false argumentation, tries to deboonk the claim AI can be a threat to human dominance.

[Anonymous No.15756651]

>>15756649
My thoughts exactly

[Anonymous No.15756653]

>>15756647
>What are you trying to say here?
That it is incapable of originality, only imitation.

>I models are the same, they are a tool that humans can use to create art, like photoshop.
You're never going to "create art" by shitting out a 20 word prompt and having a tool automatically generate an imitation of other people's art for you. Not even if you repeat it 20 times and select the best picture. Not even if you fix a few of the details in photoshop. Sorry. People should find a more honest way to cope with their lack of talent.

[Anonymous No.15756654]

>>15755436
They exist but pretty much every woman who has brought up the subject has said they prefer male gynecologists. The most common reason, a bit ironically, is that male gynos treat their lady parts better while females tend to be rough and clinical. I get the feeling that there's some truth to that but it's also a belief that men are better doctors (even if subconsciously) and perhaps even a bit of sexual attraction. Given that for heterosexual women, most contact with their genitals are by men, having a female poking around might be weird to them. Would be interesting to know if lesbians feel the same way.

[Anonymous No.15756655]

>>15747595
I find that sock puppet hand so annoying

[Anonymous No.15756662]

>>15756653
>You're never going to "create art" by shitting out a 20 word prompt and having a tool automatically generate an imitation of other people's art for you. Not even if you repeat it 20 times and select the best picture. Not even if you fix a few of the details in photoshop. Sorry. People should find a more honest way to cope with their lack of talent.
You are literally exactly the same as the people who complained when cameras were invented. You're never going to "create art" by just pointing a camera and pressing a button. That's your opinion. In 5 years your opinion will update to match reality, just as those people's opinions about cameras did. Ironically, it's a lack of imagination on your part.
One of the main problems is that people compare AI output to painted images and also compare the effort and skill required to make them, as if they're the same domain. Obviously it's nothing like painting, and a really skilled painter is doing something that a computer can never do, but neither can a photographer, it's a different medium and a different skill-set.

[Anonymous No.15756670]

>>15756662
I don't know what your insane drivel wrt. photography is even about. On one hand, no one insists that taking a beautiful photo takes anywhere near the same level of artistic competence and vision as painting a beautiful artwork. On the other hand, writing 20-word prompt is so many levels below taking a photo that I can't fathom why you're even making this analogy. You can be literally blind and produce good images with Midjourney.

>One of the main problems is that people compare AI output to painted images and also compare the effort and skill required to make them, as if they're the same domain.
You're the one doing that. Writing short prompts is not in the same domain as any kind of visual art.

[Anonymous No.15756677]

>>15756670
Ok so we agree on everything except whether there is any real skill space in the domain of image generation using AI. Anyone can take a good photo using a camera. But there is still an art to it that we recognise. Anyone can generate a good image with AI. But there is still potentially an art to it. There is shitload more human control available that just a 20 word prompt when generating images using AI. Anyway, this argument is starting to feel as pointless as arguing about whether video games can be art.

[Anonymous No.15756680]

>>15756677
If a blind man can do an acceptable job of it, it's not visual art at all. Your comparison to photography is laughable.
>But there is still potentially an art to it
That potential does not lie with writing prompts.

[Anonymous No.15756685]

99% of the income "artists" make is from doing corporate graphic illustration. This is what is in danger of going away. The arguments over making soulful art is just to cover up that what most artists do is already soulless crap to sell plastic junk to normies. Very few are making anything of artistic value.

[Anonymous No.15756688]

>>15756685
The fact that most professional illustrators produce commercial crap doesn't elevate image generators to the level of art creators.

[Anonymous No.15756690]

>>15756688
And I won't refute that but that's not what they're upset over. They're mad their bread and butter of making illustrations of groups of multicultural babies eating salad while laughing is going away. Almost all their poutrage mentions making a living and then tries to bait and switch by mentioning artistic creativity, which isn't what they're being paid for. And please keep in mind that there are more than just the two of us in this discussion.

[Anonymous No.15756693]

>>15756690
Most professional illustration work requires a degree of control that you can't get out of image generators. Clients have pretty specific demands and image generation artifacts are obviously not acceptable. Most of the bitter tears are coming from people who genuinely like art and feel that their efforts are being devalued.

[Anonymous No.15756846]

>>15756623
Explain to me how human creativity works. You can't for the same reason you can't explain how the image generator works. You can explain its goals and how it measures its progress, but you can't explain its internal process; the steps to get there.

[Anonymous No.15756861]

>>15754842
This.

[Anonymous No.15757063]

>>15749791
>the autistic person isn't the one making a 42 minute video about a random guy's bad joke

[Anonymous No.15757071]

>>15757063
She didn't. You didn't watch the video.

[Anonymous No.15757331]

>>15756846
>Explain to me how human creativity works.
Nobody knows and it's likely that nobody will.

>You can't for the same reason you can't explain how the image generator works.
>you can't explain its internal process; the steps to get there.
I can explain every aspect of it. Your own clownish ignorance is not indicator.

[Anonymous No.15757344]

>>15756623
meanwhile ""real art""

[Anonymous No.15757351]

>>15757344
I wonder what causes your kind of mental illness. Talk about spiteful mutants... Your case is extreme.

[Anonymous No.15757370]

>>15757351
what's the basis of your diagnosis doctor?

[Anonymous No.15757373]

>>15757370
The delusional mental illness that makes you worship a bot while denying the training data the bot imitates.

[Anonymous No.15757380]

>>15757373
you still failed to explain how bots ""imitating"" humans are so much different than Rothko ""imitating"" Malevich or renaissance painters ""imitating"" antique art

[Anonymous No.15757383]

>>15757380
You failed to explain how bots mechanistically shitting out imitations of the training set relates to human creativity at all. You also failed to explain why your delusional mental illness forces you to post irrelevant squares.

[Anonymous No.15757394]

>>15757383
>You failed to explain how bots mechanistically shitting out imitations of the training set relates to human creativity
Both human and ai creativity is based on input, so I believe the difference is mostly quantitative, e.g. humans get much more sensory input and much more time to actively process it.
At least for now.

>irrelevant squares
These are some of the greatest achievements of last century's art

[Anonymous No.15757396]

>>15757394
>Both human and ai creativity is based on input,
Ok.

>I believe the difference is mostly quantitative
Doesn't follow logically. It's also evidently false: you can train an image generator on an infinite amount of photographic training data and it will never learn to generate something as simple as a cave drawing, let alone a complex art style.

>These are some of the greatest achievements of last century's art
It's really striking how your delusional mental illness makes you repeatedly screech that the training data for the bot you worship doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.15757404]

>>15757383
humans do random shit until they see something they find interesting and figure out others will also find interesting, as opposed to not interesting stuff. so they do more of it, they like it more. etc.
so it's a feedback loop. atm AI gets it from you, the user. you tell it what you like and what you don't like.
whenever we get AGI with cognition, it will be able to create its own art, based on whatever it finds interesting/worthy of expressing.

[Anonymous No.15757408]

>>15757404
Why do you even bother telling me this retarded head canon when it's still based on something a bot can't do even if it were entirely true (which it obviously isn't)?

[Anonymous No.15757412]

>>15757396
>It's also evidently false
>evidently false: you can train an image generator on an infinite amount of photographic training data
Human sensory input does not contain only visual data. Even with all photographic data in the world machines (as of know) are unable to process and synthesize other kinds of input. That's why I call the difference quantitative.

>you repeatedly screech that the training data for the bot you worship doesn't exist
I don't worship anything and I don't remember saying anything about lack of existence of human art even once, quite the contrary.

I will appreciate not implying things I didn't said. You also keep saying something about delusional mental illness, the conversation will be more interesting and substantial if you stop, otherwise I will start to suspect it's some kind of projection mechanism.

Anyway, what do you think is the difference between human and machine creativity?

[Anonymous No.15757415]

>>15757412
I accept your full concession.

[Anonymous No.15757419]

>>15747595
Whatever you do, definitely do not post a link to the video you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.15757430]

>>15757412
>my opinions are valid because my imaginary future turbo-bot will be able to do real art with the help of some unspecified extra inputs and an unspecified magic algorithm
LOL

[Anonymous No.15757439]

>>15757430
Where is that citation from? Also why did you reference my post?

[Anonymous No.15757442]

>>15757439
if i got something wrong, please correct me, because i don't see anything in there except vague speculation about how some future technology will accomplish what current technology fundamentally can't do

[Anonymous No.15757443]

>>15757331
do it faggot

[Anonymous No.15757445]

>>15757443
Actually ask something first, you utter moron.

[Anonymous No.15757498]

>>15747994
>he awkwardly laughed and said it looked like a vagina. When nobody laughed he said it again, but louder.

[Anonymous No.15757500]

>>15757442
>vague speculation about how some future technology will accomplish what current technology fundamentally can't do
I see nothing of that sort, can you give specific quote?

[Anonymous No.15757509]

>>15757500
looks like your incoherent rage is softlocking you. my job here is done lol

[Anonymous No.15757513]

>>15747994
>I also understand the insufferable woman's reaction because...
Because you get deeply offended by the word "penis", presumably. If that's not it, then maybe you don't understand that insufferable vagina. I bet she'd be angry with you for suggesting that you do.

[Anonymous No.15757521]

>>15751894
> in ages past, men concluded that women could only possibly be this retarded if they were witches and summoning evil spirits, and consequently were burned at the stake
Or if their love rivals were mysteriously dropping dead after having tea with them

[Anonymous No.15757527]

>there are "people" ITT who unironically don't understand that you need at least the capacity to have subjective impressions based on your sense inputs in order to develop a original art style
Are these "people" even human? Do they have an internal experience?

[Anonymous No.15757693]

>>15757527
very scientific post, got any publications already?

[Anonymous No.15757696]

>>15757693
Did you reply to the wrong post by accident? Your response is incoherent.

[Anonymous No.15757722]

>>15747595
You lying cunt. That videos just a math nerd giving out about math shit for 40 minutes. It has NOTHING to do with the fucking things looking like a vagina, you're just trying to drum up retarded hatred because she's a woman. kys post haste

[Anonymous No.15757728]

>>15757419
He can't. It isn't about what he says it's about. Like, not at all. it's just a math nerd talking math shit. This whole threads just a joke essentially

[Anonymous No.15757729]

>You lying cunt. That videos just a math nerd giving out about math shit for 40 minutes. It has NOTHING to do with the fucking things looking like a vagina, you're just trying to drum up retarded hatred because she's a woman. kys post haste
Truth makes unattractive women seethe.

[Anonymous No.15757738]

>>15757729
You're retarded, and a liar lmao. Assuming you are OP. Anyone can get that video up on YouTube right now and prove it. Find something constructive to do, you insufferable loser.

[Anonymous No.15757743]

>>15757738
I'm not OP and your assumption is wrong. Also you will never be a sexually attractive human female so you might as well end it all tonight.

[Anonymous No.15757748]

>>15757743
lmao, absolutely tranny obsessed!! You guys make me laugh so much man, for real. Never leave here please.

[Anonymous No.15757749]

>>15757748
I feed on your impotent rage. Reply more.

[Anonymous No.15757758]

>>15757749
I'm literally laughing out loud bro. But here you go, one more(YOU) for my little dancing monkey.

[Anonymous No.15757764]

>I'm literally laughing out loud bro. But here you go, one more(YOU) for my little dancing monkey.
Low-IQ people don't realize how insanely mad they sound when they talk like this.

[Anonymous No.15757817]

>>15749182
It's cuz they're fascist, on top of that they do get offended at things you don't. Shit was noted, Steve's a moron, but nobody actually got offended except her. It looks more like an Appalachian dulcimer anyway. Not that men can't be but idk. Men may be much more likely to split off and start their own kingdom while a women really does want everyone to get along and work as a team but only to suit her interests. They are like dogs if they see a small injured dog in their pack they'll kill it because reasons, if one girl screws you they'll all immediately take her side and dick with you even if you never even anything like literally just moved on because they are fascists, they need the last word, they need you to look bad. Womens aren't always big and loud they just whisper shit and also make plans like you say this because I have to seem like that. It's an attempt at sheer mental dominance because guys don't intimidate anymore

[Anonymous No.15757826]

>>15751888
Men from 100 years ago were the real bitches. So fucking free and powerful they were like oh sure give women the right to vote maybe we'll get blowjobs

[Anonymous No.15758167]

>>15754815
I'm sure that happened

[Anonymous No.15758171]

>>15747595
Actual link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0QMKFzW9fw

She actually makes good point about violin plots being not very readable, but she repeats herself for 30 minutes and then for the last 10 minutes she repeats how it's not funny.
This could have been 15 minutes video.
I like her videos but she does this every time. I don't think her target audience is so dense they need to hear the same thing repeated over and over. Bitch if you need to vent go bother your friends and make an actual video after that.

[Anonymous No.15758328]

>>15749261
You mean the tit graph?

[Anonymous No.15758332]

>>15749261
inconsistent axis data

[Anonymous No.15758348]

>>15757063
That's literally the opposite of autism, normalfag retard.

[Anonymous No.15758352]

Women can't stop having sex with me. How do I fix this, scientifically speaking?

[Anonymous No.15758835]

>>15757764
>letting you have the last word
Denied.
I know it causes you to rage.

[Anonymous No.15758859]

>>15751906
What's bad about them? It's literally just a box plot plus the kernel density. It's literally no different than a bunch of histograms

[Anonymous No.15758874]

>>15758171
They're incredibly readable. I fucking hate normies so god damn much.

Fucking boxplots confuse them. Hell histograms confuse them.

[Anonymous No.15758876]

>>15747611
Like look at the information gained here from a simple violin plot.

You IMMEDIATELY see that Adelie penguins are quite different in bill length and are monomodal. You ALSO you see that while Gentoo and Chinstrap have similarish 'spreads' or bill lengths, there distributions are quite different, with a much more prominent double mode for the chin strap.

Anyone who thinks this shit is hard to interpret hasn't even taken BASIC statistics courses.

[Anonymous No.15758956]

>>15758876
violin outlines are entirely unnecessary there, dots would be enough

[Anonymous No.15758980]

>>15758956
Dots are enough? You're saying you can clearly see the multimodal distributions? Shut the fuck up nigger. You don't see fucking SHIT. No one plots just fucking dots unless there are two continuous variables being compared.

God I fucking hate people who don't understand basic fucking statistics. Calculating the density is ALWAYS useful and always informative. It's really the entire reason we use histograms. It's literally baby step number one. All the violin plots do is combine a number of different types of plots in one place so that you can quickly compare and contrast. It's better than just plotting the densities on top of each other as well since the violin plot can give you a quick idea of significant features in that factor space.

It's literally such a basic bitch plot that to be filtered shows the height of midwittery of whoever this woman is. Literally it's two logical steps of what you'd think of doing after creating a histogram (i.e., histogram -> kernel density -> compare kernel densities/Violinplot)

[Anonymous No.15759277]

Never in my life i have thought of a vagina will seeing a violin plot, thanks to her i can't stop seeing a vagina.

[Anonymous No.15759287]

>>15749261
Now i see tits. For me is sat.

[Anonymous No.15759290]

>>15749781
Hope them Norwood niggas got ILS and a controller.

[Anonymous No.15759293]

>>15747994
It does look like a vagina. I would have laughed.

[Anonymous No.15759302]

>>15747994
That guy is fucking retarded if he thought that was a suitable way to excuse himself from the fact he didn't prepare for the discussion. Not defending women (love from Kazakhstan), but that's honestly a total lack of self awareness.

[Anonymous No.15759305]

>>15755425
I tried telling a women once that breastfeeding is preferable to formula and even a mother's own is better than some other woman, but not every woman is capable. She just got upset and yelled at me that it doesn't matter and people shouldn't care. Stay out of women's business. They can't even acknowledge reality.

[Anonymous No.15759313]

>>15756685
They probably make art on the side as well. Their art may be shit, but the corporate art pays, so that's why they do it.

[Anonymous No.15759323]

>>15759305
yeah it was funny how she kept contradicting herself during the oral presentation. the bulk of the essay was showing studies and evidence of how the mother's genetics and endocrine system create the perfect blend of vitamins in the milk for the baby's unique needs based on chemical information gathered from saliva absorbed through the nipple, pretty amazing stuff actually. but then in the last paragraph she basically said "despite all of that, society should stop shaming formula users because some women can't breastfeed and some are simply uncomfortable with it."

[Anonymous No.15759335]

>>15747595
I just have very ugly, mildly violent things I want to express about this zogsow so I won't say anything at all.

[Anonymous No.15759372]

>>15759313
AI isn't preventing anyone from doing personal art on the side for fun. The problem is these "artists" are disingenuous liars who are too stupid to understand that people more intelligent than them can see through their lies. All they end up doing is making g themselves liked even less and then they're astonished that the public isn't rallying to their cause.

[Anonymous No.15761077]

only real mathematicians can fap to the formula without plotting it

[Anonymous No.15761086]

>>15747595
I am retardedly attracted to her, she makes my dick diamonds. Her face, voice, mannerisms, motions etc.

[Anonymous No.15761126]

>>15761086
She's mid as hell, what are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.15761135]

>>15761126
Taste is subjective, some people like fatties etc. This one particular femoid just set my penis into overdrive.

[Anonymous No.15761278]

>>15761126
What's wrong with being attracted to someone mid?

[Anonymous No.15761301]

>>15761278
Homosexuality is the only answer as to how a male could be attracted to something with such a defined jawline

[Anonymous No.15761323]

>>15747595
French Canadians were behind this

[Anonymous No.15761329]

>>15747611
me in the middle

[Anonymous No.15761367]

>>15747595
I'd plot her vagina.

[Anonymous No.15761396]

>>15747994
sorry guys i'll make sure to tell it a third time next time