9rx

> Now your ads are suddenly showing photos of people who used to go to your salon, with Photoshopped hairdos and forged haircut dates.

That reads more like the second half of the original comment, while this discussion, as quoted, has clearly always about the first bit: "Using AI to fake posting activity is bad." Let's not change the subject. A discussion cannot be had if you start inventing new context out of the blue.

In an effort to try to desperately salvage your salon analogy, this is like the salon showing photos of wigs and you becoming upset foolishly thinking it was someone's natural hair even though you like what the wig looks like and it has inspired your next, not so ugly haircut. Why is that so upsetting? If you really don't like what you see, why not move on and go the other salon next door? What is to be gained from crying over a business?

> It's an abuse of trust.

Right. Your new hairdo comes into question because we trusted you to look good, which is why we wanted to be around you, and you violated that trust. However, it is your hair to fashion as you please, no? What is the significance of us complaining about how you are now ugly? What does it mean in the grand scheme of things? What makes it more than idle gossip that will be completely forgotten next week?

> most people DGAF about random HNers

It is never most people you need to worry about.

> if someone needs to use throwaways to post negatively polarized statements on HN

If it were only read by other HN users who understand that a user account is not a human then it wouldn't matter, but the world is not so simple. There are people, who do not understand that forum accounts are not humans, who are working hard to associate internet activity with humans and will use it against them.

Of course, we already know how to identify individuals by their writing style, so a throwaway account probably isn't the screen the OP hopes it is. Still, it is the best source of making it as difficult as possible we seemingly have.

Why not? AI needs an interface and there isn't one interface to rule them all, as evidenced by Photoshop still raking in money hand over fist despite ChatGPT having full photo editing capabilities. UI and UX matter. The appeal of online forums has always been that you don't have to ask; the UI puts topics in front of you. The AI labs haven't really offered anything like that, so it still rests on third-parties to provide that UI.

A good product is a good product. The implementation details don't matter.

Given your understanding and emotional disconnection, perhaps you can rationally explain their position?

There is complaint, like someone complaining that they don't like your new haircut, but it is ultimately not their haircut to worry about. How is your apparent poor choice in style a problem to the onlooker?

The only thing that takes the Westminster system away from enabling real democracy is political parties, and they hadn't been invented when the system was designed. It took around 400 years before someone finally found the hack to break it. The original designers would have never envisioned the possibility that it could be hacked like that.

> I literally have no idea what you’re talking about.

That's fine. We can't all know everything. But why are you trying to participate in a discussion, by your own admission, you don't understand?

> It takes 2 seconds for a human to remove an ad from media.

Okay. I'll be extremely generous and let you prove that with just a single frame. https://www.dexerto.com/cdn-image/wp-content/uploads/2024/02...

Rules:

- You have 2 seconds.

- No machine learning (e.g. content-aware fill) allowed.

- Result must remove the distraction of the ad, not replace it with something equally distracting. Blurs, black squares, etc. not accepted.

- Video recording of the process provided in a follow up reply.

Go!

Okay, I'll grant you that there are some talented artists who are able to convincingly remove ads from images using traditional Photoshop tools, assuming you can find a dusty old computer kicking around that no AI lab wants to bother with. But doing that over many frames, as required for video, is a time sink nobody is going to realistically commit to.

Or maybe you still think we're in the 1950s when there were explicit ad breaks? In modern works ads are injected into the storyline. You can't just start dropping frames at random if you want to preserve the performance in its entirety.

Did you not read your own comment? It already said that before.

The bad news is the camera sees the same thing the eye does (at least to a reasonable approximation), so that means you will still see ads in the output.

I already hear your wheels turning, thinking machine learning will provide a way to remove the ads from the content, but as the AI labs start to control all the compute they will assuredly insert their own ads into what you tried to remove.

Protip: Read right up to the end of the comment before pressing reply. You missed a whole lot of context by rushing to respond midway through.

Not at all. Jobs is not implying that you should, like, jump from minimum wage job to minimum wage job until you find one you like. He is suggesting that if you put in effort, like learning deeply about something, that will close the gaps that are necessarily closed to find true love. Which is the same thing Cuban is saying.

Perhaps you can interpret Jobs' statement that way in a vacuum, but fortunately we don't need to evaluate what Jobs' said in a vacuum. He also said a lot of other things that allow us to build up context around his intent. He spoke a lot about how he found his love.

Yes we do. We toss out the technology and go back to substance farming or hunter/gathering. You'll have no trouble "eating less". But that requires social coordination and humans much prefer to escape society through the use of drugs. Always have, always will.