KillingTimeItself

No, it really isn’t.

i would consider it such, you said as much in your original post that the entire crux of the issue is the semantics between a real photograph, as physically taken by the camera, and what could be considered an image, whatever that constitutes, for purposes of semantical arguments here, let’s say digitally drawn art, clip art, whatever doesn’t matter. It’s objectively not a photo, and that’s what matters here.

The pupose of that paradox is that you unambiguously are recreating/replacing the ship exactly as you already know it is. The reason the ‘ai’ in question here is even being used is that it isn’t doing that. It’s giving you back much more than it was given.

Yeah so the reason why the thought experiment does this is because it creates an incredibly sterile environment which allows us to easily study and research the question at hand. In this case it’s to boil it down to something as physically close to “objective relation” and “symbolic relation” I.E. the two extremes of the thought experiment at hand. It’s still not easy to define what the true answer to the question is, and that’s why it’s incredibly sterile.

The comparison would be if Thesues’ ship had been lost and you definitely don’t have the ship anymore, but had managed to recover the sail. If you take the sail to an experienced builder (the ai) who had never seen the ship, then he might be able to build a reasonable approximation based on inferences from the sail and his wealth of knowledge, but nobody is going to be daft enough to assert it is same ship. Does the wheel even have the same number of spokes? Does it have the same number of oars? The same weight of anchor?

this is not what i was making my statement about. If you read my original comment you might pickup on this one.

Disagree.

yes ok, and this is what my thought experiment comparison was about in this case. The specific thing i was asking you was how we define a photo, and how we define an image, because what would normally be constituted as a photo, could arguably be considered to be an image on account of the various levels of image manipulation taking place.

While rather nitpicky in essence i suppose, the point i’m making here was that your entire statement might be upended entirely based on the fact that the original photo used, may not even be a photo at all, making the entire distinction entirely redundant to begin with. Since you never defined what counts as a “photo” and what counts as an “image” there is no clear distinction between that, other than the assumed AI image manipulation that you talked about. Which like i said, most phones do.

In short, i don’t think it’s a very good way of conceptualizing the fundamental problem here because it’s rather loose in it’s requirements. If you wanted to argue that the resulting imagery simply is not akin to actual real imagery (in a literal sense), i see no reason to disagree. However, unfortunately the general populous does not care about the semantic definition of whether or not an image is a photo or not. So as far as most people are concerned, it’s either “deep faked” or “real” There is no alternative.

Legally, since we’d be talking about revenge porn and CP here, i don’t see a reason to differentiate between the semantics, because as far as the law is concerned, and as far as most of the general public is concerned. Someone deep faking revenge porn is arguably, still just revenge porn. While AI generated CP may not be real CP, marrying a 12 year old is legal in some places, it’d still be fucking weird if you did it. If you are creating AI CP, that’s pretty fucking weird, and there isn’t exactly a good argument for doing that. (ignoring the one obvious counter example)

and they almost certainly know exactly where they are, because there is no way these orgs are just, walking into warzones without informing both parties about where they’re going and when.

No one is picking your locks just to move things around or steal small, insignificant items. You are either suffering from a mental disorder or a trusted member of the household is gaslighting you (it’s not gaslighting though, you’re grasp of reality is slipping. Don’t call me for a pick proof lock, just get help please)

or it’s probably monoxide poisoning.

the oh so well kept secret of the software and services (surrounding it) industry that people seem to think is worth paying money for.

Yet time after time these paid software companies produce the most vile awful, dysfunctional, and garbage software (and services) that have ever been created. While somehow a group of people who aren’t being paid, and aren’t doing this for any sort of reason other than “why not” manage to create the most functional software ever, while also managing to somehow catch the single biggest potential software vulnerability in this decade (other than wannacry) purely because ssh has slightly sus behaviors when running the infected payload.

Please stop doing web dev, it isn’t real.

i mean this isn’t proof. This is pretty typical for legislative speak.

Also there are literally people speaking german in this video.

yeah idk why they said that, it’s objectively wrong.

Deepfakes do not contain any recorded information about the subject unless that subject is also in the training set.

this is explicitly, untrue, they literally do. You are just factually wrong about this. While it may not be in the training data, how do you think it manages to replace the face of someone in one picture, with the face of someone else in some other video.

Do you think it just magically guesses? No, it literally uses a real picture of someone. In fact, back in the day with ganimation and early deepfake software, you literally had to train these AIs on pictures of the person you wanted it to do a faceswap on. Remember all those singing deepfakes that were super popular back a couple of years ago? Yep, those literally trained on real pictures.

Regardless, you are still ignoring my point. My question here was how do we consider AI content to be “not photo” but consider photos manipulated numerous times, through numerous different processes, which are quite literally, not the original photo, and a literal “photo” to rephrase it simpler for you, and other readers. “why is ai generated content not considered to be a photo, when a heavily altered photo of something that vaugely resembles it’s original photo in most aspects, is considered to be a photo”

You seem to have missed the entire point of my question entirely. And simply said something wrong instead.

Yes it is semantics

no, it’s not, this is a ship of thesseus premise here. The semantics results in how we contextualize and conceptualize things into word form. The problem is not semantics (they are just used to convey the problem at hand), the problem is a philosophical conundrum that has existed for thousands of years.

in fact, if we’re going by semantics here, technically photograph is rather broad as it literally just defines itself as “something in likeness of” though it defines it as taken by method of photography. We could arguably remove that part of it, and simply use it to refer to something that is a likeness of something else. And we see this is contextual usage of words, a “photographic” copy is often used to describe something that is similar enough to something else, that in terms of a photograph, they appear to be the same thing.

Think about scanning a paper document, that would be a photographic copy of some physical item. While it is literally taken via means of photography. In a contextual and semantic sense, it just refers to the fact that the digital copy is photographically equivalent to the physical copy.

oh shit, my bad.

man the rhetoric on these israel palestine conflict posting only gets more and more extreme.

Sometimes i worry about the palatability of content on the internet.

probably because you can just buy water pipes from the global market at incredibly cheap prices.

Scavenging does wonders for price effectiveness.

Imagine if we never had social media safe-spaces and everyone, everywhere had to face the full repercussions of their ideas

if we didn’t have that, we would just have an incredible amount of echo chambers, each with their own ideology on their own little crusade to dominate shit.

It would certainly be nice if everyone could get along. It would certainly be nice.

The situation in itself is unique and complicated

i’m not sure how unique this is, though in the modern era, this is certainly a unique event. But going back through human history, covering religion, and the various empires that rose and fell from grace. I’m not sure how unusual it would’ve been to see this level of war.

we still dont know fuck shit about nordstream, it’s theorized that it was ukraine, but we don’t exactly have super solid evidence of this. it could’ve been russia, but let’s be real. It probably wasn’t. It could’ve been china, but i doubt that they cared. Could’ve been the US, i sincerely doubt this. Could’ve been one of the european nations, or maybe just a rich billionaire or some shit, who knows.

What we do know, is that the attack was for all four of the pipelines, and one of them failed to properly destroy the pipeline, so presumably there is some amount of forensic evidence there. And it seems like nobody really wants to talk about it for fears of starting ww3

both israel and palestine have bombed shit they shouldn’t have.

Somehow israel managed to bomb AID vehicles.

im no forensic analyst but i’d probably venture to say that it would have been some number of the explosive munitions that ended up in the ordeal.

It’s not as easy as they want you to believe it is. I’m pretty sure most of the “promotional material” has been photoshopped or cherry picked at best

absolutely, all of the material out there for marketing is digitally manipulated by a human to some degree. And if it isn’t then honestly, i don’t know what you’re using AI image generation for lmao.

They aren’t photos. They’re photorealistic drawings done by computer algorithms. This might seem like a tiny quibble to many, but as far as I can tell it is the crux of the entire issue.

most phone cameras alter the original image with AI shit now, it’s really common, they apply all kinds of weird correction to make it look better. Plus if it’s social media there’s probably a filter somewhere in there. At what point does this become the ship of thesseus?

my point here, is that if we’re arguing that AI images are semantically, not photos, than most photos on the internet including people would also arguably, not be photos to some degree.

it would be material of and or containing child sexual abuse in it.

i believe in the US for all intents and purposes, it is, especially if it was sourced from a minor, because you don’t really have an argument against that one.

why do i get the gut feeling that this is going to be an utter clusterfuck of a mess.

Hopefully i’m wrong.