Three raccoons in a trench coat. I talk politics and furries.

https://www.youtube.com/@ragdoll_x

https://ragdollx.substack.com

https://twitter.com/x_ragdoll

  • 16 Posts
  • 96 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 20th, 2023

help-circle
  • Ragdoll X@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneStone Rule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    I didn’t hear about the vandalizing of private jets until people were complaining about stone henge.

    It’d be a bit odd if you had heard about the jets before the Stonehenge stunt since they vandalized the jets one day after Stonehenge. I heard about each of them on the day they happened as I was listening to the news.

    this does seem like a much more effective way of bringing attention to the issue.

    Even most leftists didn’t support the Stonehenge stunt while the majority of comments and posts I’ve seen on the vandalism of the jets was positive. The majority of the public has grievances towards private jets, their pollution and who’s using them, and how they should be taxed. You’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks Stonehenge is bad or that vandalizing it is good.

    This only serves to make them and other climate activists look like petty fools, besides creating infighting on the left. Nearly everyone already knows about climate change and has an opinion on it, and the Stonehenge stunt does nothing to move the public to our side or make Just Stop Oil look good.


  • The Stonehenge stunt was an ineffective attention grab. Vandalizing the private jets was an effective attention grab.

    Like if some Just Stop Oil activist took a shit in the middle of a busy NY street that would get them a lot of attention, but it wouldn’t be even remotely positive or effective in any way.

    They should stick to vandalizing the property of the biggest culprits of climate change. I and most other leftists can get behind that, and it actually puts a spotlight on the people causing the problem. The Stonehenge stunt just comes off as a petty attack on the public who has little to no say on climate issues.


  • Ragdoll X@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneStone Rule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    made climate activists look stupid for decades to come over some nonsensical and ineffective attention grab

    didn’t stop climate change

    Yeah, seems about right.

    They had the right idea when they spray painted those private jets. IDK what they were thinking with the Stonehenge stunt.






  • Ragdoll X@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneMarkiruler
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    Most of the time I think with my own voice, but sometimes when I’ve been watching a lot of videos from the same creator I’ll start thinking with their voice and speech patterns. This was moderately annoying when I started hearing my thoughts being narrated by Jacksepticeye’s high-pitched Irish voice.



  • Ȉ̶̢̠̳͉̹̫͎̻͔̫̈́͊̑͐̃̄̓̊͘ ̶̨͈̟̤͈̫̖̪̋̾̓̀̓͊̀̈̓̀̕̚̕͘͝Ạ̶̢̻͉̙̤̫̖̦̼̜̙̳̐́̍̉́͒̓̀̆̎̔͋̏̕͝͝M̶̛̛͇̔̀̈̄̀́̃̅̆̈́͑̑͆̇ ̵̢̨͈̭͇̙̲͎͉̝͙̻̌͝I̷̡͓͖̙̩̟̫̝̼̝̪̟̔͑͒͊͑̈́̀̿̋͂̓̋̔͌̚ͅN̸̮̞̟̰̣͙̦̲̥̠͑̔̎͑̇͜͝ ̷̢̛̛͍̞̖̹̮͈͕̠̟̽̔̋̎͋͑̍̿̅̈́̋̕̚̚͜͝Y̴̧̨̨͙̗̩̻̹̦̻͎͇͈͎͓̩̐̓Ö̸͈̭̒̌̀̇͂̃͠ͅŨ̷̢̞̗͛̌͌͒̀̇́̽̓͑͝Ŕ̷͇͌ ̸̛̮̋̏̋̋̔͝W̶͔̄̐͋͑A̷̧̖̗͕̻̳͙̼͖͒L̴̩̰͙̾͑͑͑̒̏Ḻ̸̡̦̭͚̱̝̟̣̤͗̊́͐̋̈́̒͠͠͠͠͝S̸̯͚͈̠͍̆̉̑͗͊̄̒̏͆̔͊













  • This did happen a while back, with researchers finding thousands of hashes of CSAM images in LAION-2B. Still, IIRC it was something like a fraction of a fraction of 1%, and they weren’t actually available in the dataset because they had already been removed from the internet.

    You could still make AI CSAM even if you were 100% sure that none of the training images included it since that’s what these models are made for - being able to combine concepts without needing to have seen them before. If you hold the AI’s hand enough with prompt engineering, textual inversion and img2img you can get it to generate pretty much anything. That’s the power and danger of these things.


  • IIRC it was something like a fraction of a fraction of 1% that was CSAM, with the researchers identifying the images through their hashes but they weren’t actually available in the dataset because they had already been removed from the internet.

    Still, you could make AI CSAM even if you were 100% sure that none of the training images included it since that’s what these models are made for - being able to combine concepts without needing to have seen them before. If you hold the AI’s hand enough with prompt engineering, textual inversion and img2img you can get it to generate pretty much anything. That’s the power and danger of these things.