Jump to content

The "Hijacked Thread" Thread


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Sheerluck said:

A limerick:

12 + 144 + 20 + 3√4 + (5 x 11) = 9² + 0
                 7

You don't get it? It's clearly:

A dozen a gross and a score

plus three times the square root of four

Divided by seven

plus five times eleven

is nine squared and not one bit more.

 

Someone's been self-isolating too long. :P 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Felt kinda blue this morning and needed some cheering up. Went searching and found this, hope it brings you a little cheer too. :smile: 

Com4aKL.jpeg

Btw, that was his last donation because Australia prohibits them past a certain age, he's fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harrison_(blood_donor)

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Don't know where else to put this ... have you come across the Incorrect Quotes Generator? https://incorrect-quotes-generator.neocities.org/ . Add character(s) of your choice and press Generate Prompt. :lol:

Quote

Sherlock: Hey John,
John: Yes?
Sherlock: Can a person breathe inside a washing machine while it’s on?
John:
John: Where’s Mycroft?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so basically you pick the number of people and optionally give them names, then click the Generate button and it plugs your characters into a randomly selected joke -- or am I missing something?

Yours is pretty good.  Here's the best I've gotten so far:

Kirk: Spock, what do IDK, LY, and TTYL mean?
Spock: I don’t know, love you, talk to you later
Kirk: Ok, I love you too, I’ll just ask McCoy.

I may have just discovered the true origin of slash fanfic!

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As regards television-based fan fiction, that does seem to be the consensus.  But I've read that people have been conjecturing about Holmes and Watson for a lot longer than that!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2021 at 10:42 PM, Carol the Dabbler said:

OK, so basically you pick the number of people and optionally give them names, then click the Generate button and it plugs your characters into a randomly selected joke -- or am I missing something?

Exactly. :thumbsup: Works surprisingly well with the boys, especially circa S1.

John: You saved me. I owe you my life.
Sherlock: No thanks. I’ve seen it and I’m not very impressed.

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Okaaaay, this one's not funny so much as eerily accurate after S4 ...

Sherlock: I really like this whole ‘good guy, bad guy’ thing you guys have going on.
John: It’s not an act, it’s just that I’m mean and Lestrade isn’t.

This one's a little better but I had to modify it a bit to have it make sense...

John: I trust Sherlock.
Lestrade: You think he knows what he's doing?
John: I wouldn't go that far.

And the winner is....!

Sherlock: I love you guys, you're the best thing that's happened to me.
John: We're the best thing that's ever happened to you?
Sherlock: Yes!
Lestrade: I'm starting to feel a little sorry for you.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me see if I understand how it works.

Hey, I like this:D
Sherlock: Why isn’t the statue smirking at me?
John: It isn’t smirking at anyone, they’re all just imagining it.
Sherlock: Three of us saw it, John. How do you explain that?
John: *points at Mycroft* Sleep deprivation. *points at Mrs.Hudson* Paranoia. *points at Moriarty * Delusional personality disorder.

 

Hey! This one is mean!


Sherlock: Would you guys be there for me if I was going through something?
John: Nope, absolutely not.
Mycroft: I hope it sucks, whatever you're going through.
Mrs.Hudson: I hope it emotionally scars you for the rest of your life.
Moriarty : I hope you reach out to me so I can ignore you.
General Shan: I can't wait to go to your funeral, knowing I could've changed that outcome.

 

This is so our boys! Mahaha


Sherlock: There is no future. there is no past. do you see? Time is simultaneous, an intricately structured jewel that humans insist on viewing one edge at a time, when the whole design is visible in every facet.
John:
Mycroft:
Lestrade:
Everyone Else At Sherlock’s Surprise Birthday Party:
John: All I asked was if you wanted to cut your birthday cake first.

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we've found the secret to how Moftiss' comes us with their ideas! Here's some more...

 

Sherlock: What do you think Moriarty will do for a distraction?
John: He'll probably, like, make a noise or throw a rock. That’s what I would do.
*Building explodes and several car alarms go off*
John: ... or he could do that.

 

Sherlock, banging on the door: Moriarty! Open up!
Moriarty: Well, it all started when I was a kid...
John: No, he meant-
Lestrade: Let them finish.

 

Sherlock, Molly, and John are sitting on a bench
Lestrade: Why do you guys look so sad?
Sherlock: Sit down with us so we can tell you.
*Lestrade sits down*
Molly: The bench is freshly painted.

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I think we've found the secret to how Moftiss' comes us with their ideas! 

That *would* explain The Final Problem, wouldn't it?

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Sherlock, banging on the door: Moriarty! Open up!
Moriarty: Well, it all started when I was a kid...
John: No, he meant-
Lestrade: Let them finish.

I'm definitely with Lestrade on that one!

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

No idea where else to put this and not sure if anyone is even interested, but this explanation how Nightshade (as in, the image data poisoning algorithm) works is the first one that made sense to me:

https://towardsdatascience.com/how-nightshade-works-b1ae14ae76c3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might read that if I had the slightest idea what an image data poisoning system is (other than it sounds like a bad thing).  Could you give us a basic explanation?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Artist puts pictures out on the internet. AI trainers use pictures without asking. Artist is pissed. Poisons his pictures so that the next one who uses them without permission will only get garbage data. They still look the same to humans but not on a math level.

Sorta like people ordering glitter traps to be taken by porch parcel thieves, only digitally.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Caya said:

Artist puts pictures out on the internet. AI trainers use pictures without asking. Artist is pissed. Poisons his pictures so that the next one who uses them without permission will only get garbage data. They still look the same to humans but not on a math level.

OK, that makes sense.  I imagine -- in a generic sort of way -- that it could be done by various methods, so will save the how-to for a day when I'm feeling more curious.

10 hours ago, Caya said:

Sorta like people ordering glitter traps to be taken by porch parcel thieves . . . .

Glitter traps are new to me also -- though porch pirates have been around for years -- so I looked it up to be sure I had the right mental image.  One datum worth remembering is that *cellulose* glitter is biodegradable, so that's the type to use if you're merely pranking someone.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was fascinated by the AI possibilities, I even played with Midjourney for a while. My greatest concern was fakes and I was right so far. I'm not completely on the "art theft" bandwagon yet, but I'm getting there fairly quickly, and I fully understand the concerns of artists fearing for their jobs.
You can theoretically opt out of AI using your images on Meta - but it's so ridiculously complicated and seems not to work in many cases.
So I was happy about Nightshade.
But hardly it's out, there comes Adobe and claims everything you made with their software is free for them to use. No opting out.

In the meantime, I've read somewhere that the net is so flooded with those bad fakes, that AI starts to learn from AI and therefore the mistakes cumulate and the pics' quality worsens.🤪

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, J.P. said:

Adobe and claims everything you made with their software is free for them to use. No opting out.

That's like Microsoft claiming that a book you wrote with MS Word belongs to them!  Isn't it?  I wonder if Adobe's claim would stand up in court -- though of course if more than one country is involved, that could get very iffy anyhow.

2 hours ago, J.P. said:

I've read somewhere that the net is so flooded with those bad fakes, that AI starts to learn from AI and therefore the mistakes cumulate . . . .

Yeah, that's almost funny, isn't it?

I keep thinking that sooner or later, you could go into a courtroom and present a photo or a video of a crime actually being committed, and the judge would rule it irrelevant because it could easily be a fake.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

That's like Microsoft claiming that a book you wrote with MS Word belongs to them!  Isn't it? 

You have to define "belonging".
It's not like they resell those works and make money from that. They feed their AI with it to make money from the AI.

I think we need a whole new category of laws here.

 

12 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Yeah, that's almost funny, isn't it?

It is. But it's also scary as hell if you consider that some kinds of AI (not necessarily visual ones) are practically everywhere. We might get a Terminator scenario, but not because AI is so clever, but because it grows dumber.

 

12 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I keep thinking that sooner or later, you could go into a courtroom and present a photo or a video of a crime actually being committed, and the judge would rule it irrelevant because it could easily be a fake.

It kind of happened already.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/14/style/flamingo-photograph-ai-1839-awards/index.html

Soon we'll have two groups of ppl: Those who believe anything as soon as it's in a picture (and don't care about the actual source) and those who doubt everything.

The second situation is especially sad for artists and photographers, who now have to provide proof their art is not… art-ificial.

Finally, we started to develop an AI to detect AI. 🫣

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, J.P. said:

You have to define "belonging".
It's not like they resell those works and make money from that. They feed their AI with it to make money from the AI.

I see.  OK, earlier you had said that Adobe "claims everything you made with their software is free for them to use."  So they aren't saying you don't have the right to sell your product to other parties, just that you can't stop Adobe from "borrowing" it.  I guess that's reasonable, assuming that they tell you ahead of time.  (Not that you'd likely read or notice or understand that part, since it's presumably buried in a whole pile of small-print legal gobbledygook, like the 16 pages the insurance company just sent me.)

It's not like this is likely to infringe on the ability of your customers to enjoy the artwork they bought from you.

6 hours ago, J.P. said:

We might get a Terminator scenario, but not because AI is so clever, but because it grows dumber.

More like because it becomes easier/cheaper, I suspect.

6 hours ago, J.P. said:

:rofl:   Oh, that's priceless!  Kind of the opposite of having a real photo not being allowed as evidence. but as you say, kind of the same.

6 hours ago, J.P. said:

Soon we'll have two groups of ppl: Those who believe anything as soon as it's in a picture (and don't care about the actual source) and those who doubt everything.

Soon?   :P   Maybe already.  Like the people who believe/doubt anything they read.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

It's not like this is likely to infringe on the ability of your customers to enjoy the artwork they bought from you.

The problem is: why should anyone buy anything from you when they can let AI make it? Everyone can create an image "in the style of XYZ", without XYZ knowing or agreeing to this. Renowned artists have problems with that and I understand it. It's literally flooding the "market" with falsificates.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, J.P. said:

Everyone can create an image "in the style of XYZ", without XYZ knowing or agreeing to this.

But does it have what you might call the "soul" of a genuine XYZ piece?  That sort of thing (albeit done by humans rather than computers) has been going on for ages in fiction, with varying success.  For example, Robert Goldsborough's professionally published Nero Wolfe novels have some fans, but I (and a number of other fans of Rex Stout's original series) find them a bit lacking.  All of Stout's pet phrases are there, and his characters are in character.  There's nothing really wrong -- but despite the new plots, they're a little *too* much like the originals, as though you'd simply fed all of Stout's novels into a meat grinder.  I assume that's basically how AI works.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:
21 hours ago, J.P. said:

 

But does it have what you might call the "soul" of a genuine XYZ piece?

I'm afraid it doesn't matter - yet. When I see what people are gushing over on FB, I doubt most of them even know what the reality looks like. They don't want a "soul" - they want "fast" and "cheap". But it won't go well for very long imo.

Here is an article

Brands Are Beginning to Turn Against AI

After lots of hype from big tech and a rush to integrate trendy new tools into every aspect of our lives, the backlash seems inevitable

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ai-image-brand-backlash-1235040371/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that link.  One tidbit from the article:  "Cara, a new artist portfolio site, . . . aims to protect its users from the scraping of user data to train AI models, . . . ."

Of course Rolling Stone has always been avant garde, so we'll see how these projections pan out.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 12 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.