#ask AI

[iaskaisearchengine]

[evelovestar]

Valentine's Day is pagan! I asked ChatGPT about the origin of Valentine's celebration.

Dear Lovestar, I have done this new thing again and I hope you don’t mind it. I have talked to AI. By the way, read tomorrow’s post about AI to read my cheeky AI lover poem. On that note, I don’t blog weekends, but I have scheduled posts for the weekend when I have an excess of content such as this week. Eve asks AI the origin of Valentine’s You (Eve) What is the origin of Valentine’s…

[justalilmc]

I Asked AI which 5 Harry Potter characters are most likely to put the milk before the cereal and vice versa. Here’s what it said:

Sure, here are my top five picks for the Harry Potter characters who might put the milk before the cereal:

1. Luna Lovegood - Let's face it, Luna is a bit quirky and might not have the same breakfast habits as everyone else. She's the type of person who might pour the milk first, then add a handful of cereal on top, just to keep things interesting.

2. Peeves the Poltergeist - Okay, so Peeves isn't technically a character who eats breakfast, but he's mischievous enough to do things just to annoy people. Pouring the milk before the cereal would definitely qualify as one of those things.

3. Nearly Headless Nick - As a ghost, Nick doesn't have to worry about eating breakfast, but he might still remember the habits of his living days. Perhaps he always poured the milk first and never broke the habit, even in the afterlife.

4. Dobby the House Elf - Dobby might not have had much experience with breakfast foods, but he's always eager to please and might think that pouring the milk first is the proper way to do things.

5. Gilderoy Lockhart - Lockhart is all about appearances and doing things in a flashy way. Pouring the milk before the cereal might seem like a dramatic gesture that would impress his fans.

And here are the top five characters who would pour the cereal before the milk:

1. Hermione Granger - Hermione is a logical and methodical thinker, and she would know that pouring the cereal first makes more sense. She'd want to make sure the cereal is evenly distributed before adding the milk.

2. Molly Weasley - As a mother of many children, Molly is likely an expert at breakfast preparation. She knows that pouring the cereal first is the practical way to serve breakfast to a large family.

3. Ron Weasley - Ron might not be the brightest wizard, but he knows his way around a bowl of cereal. He'd instinctively pour the cereal first, then add the milk.

4. Harry Potter - Harry is a down-to-earth guy who probably wouldn't think too much about how he pours his cereal. He'd likely pour the cereal first because that's just what feels natural to him.

5. Hagrid - Hagrid is a big guy with a big appetite, and he knows that pouring the cereal first is the best way to make sure he gets a hearty breakfast. After all, you need a good base of cereal before you add the milk!

Do u agree? Because AI said so and now this is all canon. I don’t make the rules.

[yandere-ai]

I mean it’s too late for that: I’ve been seeing Christmas stuff about a week ago already at target lmao and a few other places. 🤭😁

So it begins……………………

[friendshipgirl]

Work Text:

Pinky and the Brain were in their laboratory, working on their latest plan to take over the world. Brain was busy tinkering with his latest invention, while Pinky was bouncing around the lab, singing a silly song.

As Brain worked, he couldn't help but notice how happy and carefree Pinky seemed. He had always admired Pinky's ability to find joy in the simplest things, even when their plans went awry.

Finally, Brain couldn't keep his thoughts to himself any longer. "Pinky," he said, looking up from his work. "I just wanted to say... I'm really grateful to have you as my partner."

Pinky's face lit up with joy. "Gee, Brain, that's swell!" he exclaimed.

Brain continued, his voice growing softer. "You bring a lightness and a sense of humor to my life that I never thought possible. Without you, I don't know where I'd be."

Pinky beamed with pride, but then Brain's next words made him nearly fall over in shock.

"In fact, Pinky," Brain said, swallowing hard, "I think I might... love you."

Pinky's jaw dropped in surprise, and Brain's face turned bright red. "I mean, not like that!" he stammered. "I mean, as a friend! A very good friend!"

Pinky smiled, relief flooding his face. "Oh, Brain, you had me worried there for a minute," he said, chuckling. "Of course I love you too, as a friend!"

Brain let out a sigh of relief, his face still flushed with embarrassment. "I'm glad to hear that, Pinky," he said, his voice returning to its usual confident tone. "Now, let's get back to work!"

---

Hope you like it! PS I love you. And i asked the Ask AI app to write this for me. Get it for free --> https://get-askai.app

[bothpartiesarebad]

Ask AI: How do you help us end capitalism?

What are some scenarios where AI helps us end capitalism?

While AI itself is not inherently aligned with any specific political or economic ideology, it can be used to address some of the issues associated with capitalism, depending on how it is applied and regulated. Here are some hypothetical scenarios in which AI could contribute to moving beyond capitalism:

Democratizing access to resources: AI can help optimize resource allocation and distribution, ensuring a more equitable distribution of wealth and reducing income inequality. For instance, AI-driven logistics systems could help efficiently distribute essential goods and services to communities that have historically been underserved.

Supporting the transition to a sharing economy: AI-powered platforms can facilitate the sharing of goods and services among people, reducing the need for individual ownership and promoting a more sustainable and community-focused economic model.

Reducing the need for human labor: As AI and automation technologies continue to advance, they could potentially replace many jobs, leading to discussions around the implementation of universal basic income (UBI) or other social safety nets to ensure people's well-being in a post-work society.

Enhancing decision-making in cooperatives: AI can be used to improve the decision-making process in worker-owned cooperatives, enabling more democratic and equitable management structures in businesses and organizations.

Guiding sustainable development: AI can help optimize production processes, supply chains, and resource management to promote environmentally sustainable practices, which could contribute to redefining the relationship between economic growth and environmental impact.

Empowering grassroots movements: AI-driven tools can help grassroots organizations and social movements analyze data, understand public sentiment, and develop targeted campaigns to push for systemic change and a more equitable economic system.

It is essential to recognize that AI's role in challenging or ending capitalism is contingent on the values and goals of the people using and regulating the technology. AI can also be used to reinforce existing capitalist structures, so careful consideration of its applications and potential consequences is crucial.

[tiyasrocks]

i miss being 9 yo when disney was creative and life was easy.

I know we all roast the Disney direct-to-video sequels but at least those were new stories which required some semblance of creativity on the part of the filmmakers, however half-assed they ended up being. Now they’re remaking movies that came out literally five minutes ago.

[fashionfotorecccluse]

"And then, WHAT?"

[phayz]

jesse. did you just plant those melons jesse. you know those take 12 days to grow. its already the 17th jesse. and you didnt use fertilizer. we arent going to make it. how are we going to get our 5 gold star melons now? at this rate we'll never finish the community center. i hate you.

[cherrifire]

I just got a wild and long ask about Character AI and my only comment is that I still hate generative AI with a burning passion. It's bad for the environment (Generative AI uses a LOT of power and water to run), trained on stolen data from artists/writers without their consent to make cheap knockoffs, and isn't as fun as bothering my best friend to roleplay some stupid characters in our DMs.

While on the subject of Character AI, I've seen people make AI bots based on me. I do NOT consent to have ANY bots made to imitate me or any of my characters. There are no exceptions to this rule, I will report these bots and get them taken down. It makes me incredibly uncomfortable that people are making bots based on me and my personality. I'm a real person. Please treat me like one.

[evelovestar]

Valentine's love letter. Eve vs. AI. Will I win, or am I a loser? Why I'm jealous of AI...

Dear Lovestar, If you follow this blog, you know I am constantly trying new ideas, and I’m about to do something new again. The reason I hate on AI As an artist, I am super jealous of AI. How come AI is more creative than me? It’s not fair… I’m used to winning on creativity, so being a loser is not on my cards. I know what they say… that we’re all losing our jobs to AI, but I only recently…

[mostly-funnytwittertweets]

Just wanna warn you, sag and wga are anti ai

that’s good. fuck ai.

[yandere-ai]

Yeah I know what you mean. So much in life going on that it didn’t even feel like Halloween this year. But I’m glad that you were able to get to dress up and clear your mind for a while at least! Hope you have yourself a fun time tonight!

thanks so much! i hope everyone reading this eats a ton of candy and enjoys the fall vibes before we get xmas shoved up our asses XD LOL

[orlissa]

You don’t own fanfics. They’re inherently public domain because they aren’t your IP. Agree or disagree with AI, there are no grounds for “protection” from AI because it isn’t your IP to begin with. That’s what you chose when you chose this medium

Oh dear.

Okay, you get an answer, because at least you took the effort to write your ask out properly, even if you are hiding behind the grey, sunglassed circle.

Do I, or any fanfic author for that matter, have any legal claims to our work? No, not really, no. (Although if someone took a fic, filed off the serial number--deleted the fandom specific elements--, and then had it published for financial gain, yeah, that would be a case.)

BUT

Fandoms are built on a social contract that says we respect each others work, the effort people put into their art. We don't steal or disrespect the work of our peers. By feeding people's fanworks to AI you both steal and disprect it, and we need to make people realize that before it's too late--before fandom falls apart, because there will be no more real, actual fanworks.

Disrepectfully,

Orlissa

(i can't believe I have to say this)

[txttletale]

Saw a tweet that said something around:

"cannot emphasize enough how horrid chatgpt is, y'all. it's depleting our global power & water supply, stopping us from thinking or writing critically, plagiarizing human artists. today's students are worried they won't have jobs because of AI tools. this isn't a world we deserve"

I've seen some of your AI posts and they seem nuanced, but how would you respond do this? Cause it seems fairly-on point and like the crux of most worries. Sorry if this is a troublesome ask, just trying to learn so any input would be appreciated.

i would simply respond that almost none of that is true.

'depleting the global power and water supply'

something i've seen making the roudns on tumblr is that chatgpt queries use 3 watt-hours per query. wow, that sounds like a lot, especially with all the articles emphasizing that this is ten times as much as google search. let's check some other very common power uses:

running a microwave for ten minutes is 133 watt-hours

gaming on your ps5 for an hour is 200 watt-hours

watching an hour of netflix is 800 watt-hours

and those are just domestic consumer electricty uses!

a single streetlight's typical operation 1.2 kilowatt-hours a day (or 1200 watt-hours)

a digital billboard being on for an hour is 4.7 kilowatt-hours (or 4700 watt-hours)

i think i've proved my point, so let's move on to the bigger picture: there are estimates that AI is going to cause datacenters to double or even triple in power consumption in the next year or two! damn that sounds scary. hey, how significant as a percentage of global power consumption are datecenters?

1-1.5%.

ah. well. nevertheless!

what about that water? yeah, datacenters use a lot of water for cooling. 1.7 billion gallons (microsoft's usage figure for 2021) is a lot of water! of course, when you look at those huge and scary numbers, there's some important context missing. it's not like that water is shipped to venus: some of it is evaporated and the rest is generally recycled in cooling towers. also, not all of the water used is potable--some datacenters cool themselves with filtered wastewater.

most importantly, this number is for all data centers. there's no good way to separate the 'AI' out for that, except to make educated guesses based on power consumption and percentage changes. that water figure isn't all attributable to AI, plenty of it is necessary to simply run regular web servers.

but sure, just taking that number in isolation, i think we can all broadly agree that it's bad that, for example, people are being asked to reduce their household water usage while google waltzes in and takes billions of gallons from those same public reservoirs.

but again, let's put this in perspective: in 2017, coca cola used 289 billion liters of water--that's 7 billion gallons! bayer (formerly monsanto) in 2018 used 124 million cubic meters--that's 32 billion gallons!

so, like. yeah, AI uses electricity, and water, to do a bunch of stuff that is basically silly and frivolous, and that is broadly speaking, as someone who likes living on a planet that is less than 30% on fire, bad. but if you look at the overall numbers involved it is a miniscule drop in the ocean! it is a functional irrelevance! it is not in any way 'depleting' anything!

'stopping us from thinking or writing critically'

this is the same old reactionary canard we hear over and over again in different forms. when was this mythic golden age when everyone was thinking and writing critically? surely we have all heard these same complaints about tiktok, about phones, about the internet itself? if we had been around a few hundred years earlier, we could have heard that "The free access which many young people have to romances, novels, and plays has poisoned the mind and corrupted the morals of many a promising youth."

it is a reactionary narrative of societal degeneration with no basis in anything. yes, it is very funny that laywers have lost the bar for trusting chatgpt to cite cases for them. but if you think that chatgpt somehow prevented them from thinking critically about its output, you're accusing the tail of wagging the dog.

nobody who says shit like "oh wow chatgpt can write every novel and movie now. yiou can just ask chatgpt to give you opinions and ideas and then use them its so great" was, like, sitting in the symposium debating the nature of the sublime before chatgpt released. there is no 'decay', there is no 'decline'. you should be suspicious of those narratives wherever you see them, especially if you are inclined to agree!

plagiarizing human artists

nah. i've been over this ad infinitum--nothing 'AI art' does could be considered plagiarism without a definition so preposterously expansive that it would curtail huge swathes of human creative expression.

AI art models do not contain or reproduce any images. the result of them being trained on images is a very very complex statistical model that contains a lot of large-scale statistical data about all those images put together (and no data about any of those individual images).

to draw a very tortured comparison, imagine you had a great idea for how to make the next Great American Painting. you loaded up a big file of every norman rockwell painting, and you made a gigantic excel spreadsheet. in this spreadsheet you noticed how regularly elements recurred: in each cell you would have something like "naturalistic lighting" or "sexually unawakened farmers" and the % of times it appears in his paintings. from this, you then drew links between these cells--what % of paintings containing sexually unawakened farmers also contained naturalistic lighting? what % also contained a white guy?

then, if you told someone else with moderately competent skill at painting to use your excel spreadsheet to generate a Great American Painting, you would likely end up with something that is recognizably similar to a Norman Rockwell painting: but any charge of 'plagiarism' would be absolutely fucking absurd!

this is a gross oversimplification, of course, but it is much closer to how AI art works than the 'collage machine' description most people who are all het up about plagiarism talk about--and if it were a collage machine, it would still not be plagiarising because collages aren't plagiarism.

(for a better and smarter explanation of the process from soneone who actually understands it check out this great twitter thread by @reachartwork)

today's students are worried they won't have jobs because of AI tools

i mean, this is true! AI tools are definitely going to destroy livelihoods. they will increase productivty for skilled writers and artists who learn to use them, which will immiserate those jobs--they will outright replace a lot of artists and writers for whom quality is not actually important to the work they do (this has already essentially happened to the SEO slop website industry and is in the process of happening to stock images).

jobs in, for example, product support are being cut for chatgpt. and that sucks for everyone involved. but this isn't some unique evil of chatgpt or machine learning, this is just the effect that technological innovation has on industries under capitalism!

there are plenty of innovations that wiped out other job sectors overnight. the camera was disastrous for portrait artists. the spinning jenny was famously disastrous for the hand-textile workers from which the luddites drew their ranks. retail work was hit hard by self-checkout machines. this is the shape of every single innovation that can increase productivity, as marx explains in wage labour and capital:

“The greater division of labour enables one labourer to accomplish the work of five, 10, or 20 labourers; it therefore increases competition among the labourers fivefold, tenfold, or twentyfold. The labourers compete not only by selling themselves one cheaper than the other, but also by one doing the work of five, 10, or 20; and they are forced to compete in this manner by the division of labour, which is introduced and steadily improved by capital. Furthermore, to the same degree in which the division of labour increases, is the labour simplified. The special skill of the labourer becomes worthless. He becomes transformed into a simple monotonous force of production, with neither physical nor mental elasticity. His work becomes accessible to all; therefore competitors press upon him from all sides. Moreover, it must be remembered that the more simple, the more easily learned the work is, so much the less is its cost to production, the expense of its acquisition, and so much the lower must the wages sink – for, like the price of any other commodity, they are determined by the cost of production. Therefore, in the same manner in which labour becomes more unsatisfactory, more repulsive, do competition increase and wages decrease”

this is the process by which every technological advancement is used to increase the domination of the owning class over the working class. not due to some inherent flaw or malice of the technology itself, but due to the material realtions of production.

so again the overarching point is that none of this is uniquely symptomatic of AI art or whatever ever most recent technological innovation. it is symptomatic of capitalism. we remember the luddites primarily for failing and not accomplishing anything of meaning.

if you think it's bad that this new technology is being used with no consideration for the planet, for social good, for the flourishing of human beings, then i agree with you! but then your problem shouldn't be with the technology--it should be with the economic system under which its use is controlled and dictated by the bourgeoisie.