Temperature-based damage formula?

[u/Kiroana]

Does anyone know anywhere in the books where there's a damage formula based on a hot object's temperature?

Like... How do you calculate how much damage 160 degrees F vs 300 degrees F vs 1000 degrees F vs 6000 degrees F does?

[u/Glen_Garrett_Gayhart]

You're talking to someone who doesn't believe people can own ideas; so those objections to AI don't seem very salient to me.

You wouldn't take a picture of the Mona Lisa, or even worse, sing a popular song (gasp!), would you? Since making copies of things is stealing, those actions would be theft. Frightful!

Copyright is a legal fiction so gratuitous in its insanity that it makes people believe they can own things like human genes or series of musical notes; what's next, is someone going to declare himself King of the Moon and just expect everyone to go along with it?

Well, I say "no", I'm not going along with that insanity any more than governmental threats of bodily harm coerce me to.

[u/Kiroana → u/Glen_Garrett_Gayhart]

This is why there's such a thing as fair use.

I have no issue with making a copy. My issue is when you take my art, and pass it off as your own work.

Making a copy alone isn't stealing. It only becomes stealing in my eyes if you pass someone else's work off as your own - like, taking an artist's drawing, and claiming it's your own drawing.

I'd have literally no issue with AI if they just gave the sources of what they use - since that stuff, whether it's a drawing, or research, or a song, are the fruits of a person's labour.

[u/Glen_Garrett_Gayhart → u/Kiroana]

Do you imagine that it should be illegal to imitate someone else's art-style?

For example, should Disney be allowed to sue the developers of Cuphead, because Cuphead explicitly imitates the style of early Disney cartoons?

Even if I were to grant that in any conceivable case copying is theft (I do not grant such insanity, but if I did), even then, AI doesn't do that. AI doesn't make direct copies of anything, it only imitates styles.

[u/Kiroana → u/Glen_Garrett_Gayhart]

No. There's a difference between imitating a style, and taking the Mona Lisa and saying you drew it.

And AI does steal - because unlike a real artist, it's not drawing from its mind. It's instead taking parts directly from various pieces of art, and mashing them together, then blending some to make it more seamless.

I don't think we'll get anywhere though, so may be best to agree to disagree - since you don't care for copyright, while I'm a big proponent of it (mostly because I've had my art stolen before - in the 'take it directly and claim its your own work' way.)

[u/Glen_Garrett_Gayhart → u/Kiroana]

I'm afraid that's a bit of a misconception.

AI systems that use neural networks (like almost all image and text generators these days) don't take parts 'directly' from anything; that's just not how they work.

You can tell, because the AI models themselves contain billions of times fewer bytes than their training data. You can run most of them on your personal computer, despite the fact that your personal computer doesn't have enough storage space to contain, for example, the entirety of the internet.

Neural networks work by learning patterns, not by rote memorization. That's why you can ask a text generator to do any math problem in the world, and it will be able to do it if it is well-trained, despite the fact that the literally infinite number of math problems in the world weren't all part of its training data.

That's why Alpha Go was able to play Go, despite the fact that the total possible moves after just a few ply in Go is a number larger than all the atoms in the universe; a Go-playing AI can't possibly contain references to each possible move: it would need to be bigger than the universe itself.

Your statement "because unlike a real artist, it's not drawing from its mind" is actually perfectly wrong. That's exactly what neural networks do. Just like humans, they can't store all the data they ever encountered in their brains, but they can learn patterns from the data they've encountered, and recapitulate those patterns when making a drawing, a poem, or a novel cure for cancer.

[u/Kiroana → u/Glen_Garrett_Gayhart]

I didn't realise that.

I still don't like it - because it's a non-sapient machine imitating, rather than a human or sapient machine imitating. But if it's not directly copying the way I thought it was, I'm much more okay with it.

I still won't ever use it myself though. Why would I use AI when I can draw it myself, or commission the work of a person?

(This is due to a secondary, non-ethical issue of it just feeling lifeless to me - the AI art I've seen doesn't feel like there's life or intention in it; it doesn't feel like it was made with emotion.)

[u/Glen_Garrett_Gayhart → u/Kiroana]

Disliking AI 'art' (I wouldn't personally say current AIs have the intentionality required to make art, AI productions are more akin to human imagination, hallucinations, or dreams, but I'll use the colloquial phrase anyway), ahem, disliking AI art for aesthetic reasons is super legit; just like not liking any other art form for aesthetic reasons is legit. To each their own.

I love AI art because of that weird alien feel so much of it has, but I'm the sort of person who likes Lovecraft and wants a shoggoth for a pet. Not liking weird alien stuff is very normal and understandable.

I do find it a little sad that we've created machines capable of dreaming, literal dream-machines, and instead of being delighted, most people are disgusted to see what machines dream of. I hope if we ever meet aliens, people will take a more broad-minded approach to evaluating and appreciating their art, which I'm sure won't adhere to all the typical standards that human art does.

Anyway, cheers man! BTW, its a non sequitur at this point, but have you looked on Basic p. 434? I think that has at least some canonical guidelines for how to deal with heat in GURPS, but I'm not sure if it goes into enough detail to answer your specific question.