This is kind of how my life felt before I got medicated for ADHD. Not being able to do things even when they’re super easy (or worse when they are things you want to do but you just can’t get yourself to do them for no fucking reason) is called Executive Dysfunction, and it is the ADHD symptom I probably suffer from the most. Good news: meds can help with this.

Now, I still feel unmotivated sometimes even on my meds, and general hopelessness from the meaninglessness of existence is ever present.

However, just the ability to plan and to start tasks without having to spend hours building the motivation is amazing. I just do things when I think about them even when I don’t want to. Like I’ll say, “I have time to put of this work and play video games” and then before I even start playing I decide I might as well do the task first.

I still don’t get pleasure out of completing tasks, but being able to complete and keep track of tasks means that eventually I reach a point where I don’t have any more tasks to do in the moment, and that peace is incredible.

It’s so nice not being anxious all the time about all the tasks I need to do because they’re just done.

Also, meds actually help me sleep soundly and like regularly to the point I don’t really need an alarm. Despite that, they don’t make me feel sleepy during the day. (I should note I also take melatonin before bed so maybe it’s like the combination that leads to perfectly regular sleep idk)

Anyway, if I were you I might look into talking to a psychiatrist to see if you have ADHD.

PS: tip for anyone with ADHD meds, if they give you meds that don’t work for you, don’t be scared to ask for a change. Methylphenidate made me super anxious, killed my appetite, and wore off fast. Adderall doesn’t have any noticeable side effects and works well.

How does one generate a map like this?

Hate those bandits, and that general area with all of them; their blades are good at killing demons tho

I read that “Prickly muffin” and now I’m debating on whether I should or should not watch Bojack Horseman again

Yes there is demand for art, but art is produced by people.

AI is only able to do what it can by mimicking the art of others. By plagiarizing that work, it prevents artists from getting paid to create art and discourages people from creating and sharing art on the internet in the first place. You may not care about them, or value creativity, but image generation relies on creative people putting new artwork on the net.

What are your bots going to create when they have nothing to feed on but themselves?

That’s the fun upside to the internet becoming filled and killed with AI slop: AI companies are literally poisoning their own models. (Data poisoning that is)

Predictive models of any kind produce error, and when you train on predicted data you compound that error.

Unless AI scrapers can differentiate AI generated “art” from human generated art (which would mean that AI art never truly becomes indistinguishable-from or as-good-as human art, something techbros and idiots would be upset about), generative AI will eat its own tail in an oddly literal sense.

The more the web fills with slop, the more AI will train on it, and the worse and worse the models will get at generating good looking images, leading the images they produce (and the ones they inevitably train on) to decrease in quality, hastening the cycle of their own degradation.

Is there a Lemmy community for comments out of context?

Because even in context this is a wild comment; out of context it would be even better

Valid point, though I’m surprised that cyc was used for non-AI purposes since, in my very very limited knowledge of the project, I thought the whole thing was based around the ability to reason and infer from an encyclopedic data set.

Regardless, I suppose the original topic of this discussion is heading towards a prescriptivist vs descriptivist debate:

Should the term Artificial Intelligence have the more literal meaning it held when it first was discussed, like by Turing or in the sci-fi of Isaac Asimov?

OR

Should society’s use of the term in reference to advances in problem solving tech in general or specifically its most prevalent use in reference to any neural network or learning algorithm in general be the definition of Artificial Intelligence?

Should we shift our definition of a term based on how it is used to match popular use regardless of its original intended meaning or should we try to keep the meaning of the phrase specific/direct/literal and fight the natural shift in language?

Personally, I prefer the latter because I think keeping the meaning as close to literal as possible increases the clarity of the words and because the term AI is now thrown about so often these days as a buzzword for clicks or money, typically by people pushing lies about the capabilities or functionality of the systems they’re referring to as AI.

The lumping together of models trained by scientists to solve novel problems and the models that are using the energy of a small country to plagiarize artwork also is not something I view fondly as I’ve seen people assume the two are one in the same despite the fact one has redeeming qualities and the other is mostly bullshit.

However, it seems that many others are fine with or in support of a descriptivist definition where words have the meaning they are used for even if that meaning goes beyond their original intent or definitions.

To each their own I suppose. These preferences are opinions so there really isn’t an objectively right or wrong answer for this debate

The term “artificial intelligence” is supposed to refer to a computer simulating the actions/behavior of a human.

LLMs can mimic human communication and therefore fits the AI definition.

Generative AI for images is a much looser fit but it still fulfills a purpose that was until recently something most or thought only humans could do, so some people think it counts as AI

However some of the earliest AI’s in computer programs were just NPCs in video games, looong before deep learning became a widespread thing.

Enemies in video games (typically referring to the algorithms used for their pathfinding) are AI whether they use neural networks or not.

Deep learning neural networks are predictive mathematic models that can be tuned from data like in linear regression. This, in itself, is not AI.

Transformers are a special structure that can be implemented in a neural network to attenuate certain inputs. (This is how ChatGPT can act like it has object permanence or any sort of memory when it doesn’t) Again, this kind of predictive model is not AI any more than using Simpson’s Rule to calculate a missing coordinate in a dataset would be AI.

Neural networks can be used to mimic human actions, and when they do, that fits the definition. But the techniques and math behind the models is not AI.

The only people who refer to non-AI things as AI are people who don’t know what they’re talking about, or people who are using it as a buzzword for financial gain (in the case of most corporate executives and tech-bros it is both)

Well the svg file itself wouldn’t be, but whatever tries to render the image might think the file is infinite since it’d loop around forever. Come to think of it, I’d imaging there are probably safeguards in place to prevent svg files like this hypothetical one from being opened because they’d run as an infinite loop

Wait, is it possible to create a real infinite droste effect with vector graphics since they aren’t limited by resolution?

As long as you can do recursion in the xml it should be possible to make an svg that’s “infinitely” recursive yes?

(I have no experience on this topic)

“Shut the Hell up!”

Matches (No I’m not a pyromaniac)

“As luck would have it, I still have the career chips of the last crew”

Reaches for envelope labeled “Contents of space wasp’s stomach”

Username checks out lol

I’m fine, everything’s fine…

Damnit! And bravo my friend, I guess I need to watch the whole series again

“You see nowadays we can easily take a unique and beautiful object and easily reduce it to a formula for mass production, I call the process science”

This is a long forgotten fever dream I still don’t know how to process

Nope, gen z, and I haven’t actually read any of the Harry Potter books myself.

But you’re on the right track; I think it was reading The Hobbit that did me in lol

Well, that doesn’t make it clearer so I’m guessing it’s an episode from the new(ish) seasons that I haven’t gotten around to watching yet

When I am talking about fibrous material, like individual strands of carbon in a composite, I naturally type “fibre” but when I talk about nutrition or the internet it’s “fiber”

I also tend to spell armor armour and color colour despite being American.

Oh and I write grey instead of gray.

I also catch myself writing units like metre and litre instead of meter and liter sometimes.

It really all depends on if there’s a spellchecker turned on that will tell me I’m spelling things wrong.