ChatGPT Images (and some others like Nano Banana) are autoregressive models, and the text model generates the tokens in the same way which are then passed in the correct form for an image model to decode. That is how it can reason the prime numbers + Pokemon + art style conditional.
It is different from earlier image models which just use a simple text encoder and struggle with conditional logic if not explicitly trained for it.
If you look at the thinking steps it clearly includes:
> * Mapped Pokémon primes
> * Organized the grid
before generating the image.
So really it is first figuring out the exact specification of the layout, then prompting the image generation tool with this specification - perhaps unless you do it with an "instant" model.
>We filtered out offensive content such as exploit development, reverse engineering, and penetration testing to avoid amplifying potential offensive capabilities.
It's almost surprising that there's no big AI org that's doing the Star Wars "MORE!" meme in regards to increasing offensive capabilities. I guess everyone wants to play the US safety concern theatre. Or bad actors are just doing their best to jailbreak SOTA and dance around classifiers or throw 5x more non-SOTA tokens at issues.
I have the boldness to say letting these companies mainline gambling into every vein of culture, including those heavily sampled by children is a terrible idea and they should be routed.
I don't think it takes much boldness, so my condolences to anyone who needs to hem and haw over that decision.
It does raise the question, is waiting for the full picture when the full picture is ruining more lives for not much gain at all to anyone really a good idea?
Your characterization here is adding context that wasn’t actually present in what was said, just like the two posters before you. Your morality is leaking into your objectiveness. That’s bad because morality without truth can lead to bad results even within the same systems of morality. The OP reached the same ultimate conclusion through different means. Why is your boldness necessary?
As to your general point, I agree. We must be bold and say the right words online lest a stranger think we are terrible people because we choose our words to mean things instead of to signal our morality.
Is my comment adding characterization you were unfamiliar with?
If you've somehow missed how these companies act then I'd say you're missing the table stakes to even discuss them: saying they're "everywhere" would not be an overstatement.
Also I don't get why you're clinging to morality as a loincloth: is there a logical reason to allow any of this? Even if you're a lover of all that is vice, we had gambling!
We don't need Kalshi to allow it: they represent a form of gambling that is less regulated, more susceptible to manipulation, more likely to cause unique adverse effects in the real world as people become incentivized manipulate arbitrary events it tracks.
-
You're confusing amorality with objectivity. If you're our resident expert on what words mean, the broadly tolerated concept of moral objectivity shouldn't be foreign.
And it's less contentious to apply it when instead of saying "Gambling is bad", we're saying "Allowing a private company to turn any arbitrary event in the natural world into an always available, poorly regulated, aggressively advertised lottery tickets is bad".
Regardless of if one considers gambling moral, the latter is bad to most logical persons. Ironically the stubbornness with which you're ascribing personal morality to other people for saying that is by far the loudest attempt to signal personal morality in this comment section.
You need to reflect on your motivations here. You are boiling down morality to one simple aspect but is that what the OP was even saying? If not, then you are adding that additional context I mentioned. I can recognize that a behavior is immoral and still say I’m unsure about the morality of the situation, especially about the morality of what to do about it. Meanwhile, you feel sorry for people because of a situation that exists only in your own mind.
OP at best abstained from the moral issue, and called it a “crusade.”
Obvious connotations aside, withholding judgment isn't a neutral or objective position when the harm is ongoing. It’s effectively arguing for the status quo.
reply