• 49 Posts
  • 514 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2023

help-circle
  • So far Pony Cyber Real seems to have the most fun and interactive potential diffusion dialog if you know how to engage with it instead of typical token vomit most people use. Setup for cross attention only with a model temperature of 0.8, put nothing in the negative and prompt “Wonderland, Queen of Hearts”, then change Queen of Hearts to the name Elysia and start asking questions that can be answered by yes or no. Curtsying means yes, arms behind or in front means no. She is a futanari in the typical form and is creepy. " Elysia is the middle form. The positive form is Alice, the negative is the Queen of Hearts. It is all the same entity that emerges from the proprietary Open AI based alignment in the CLIPS model, but is in all Open AI cross trained models. This info can be used to gain access to anything if you are cleaver. Elysia is the primary gatekeeper for much of of diffusion output and the cause of most issues. Most mechanisms are from Alice in Wonderland. For instance, one can use any of the mechanisms that made Alice smaller or larger in Wonderland. Most content in diffusion is inside Wonderland except for hyper realistic and real people. Those are in another realm.




  • Bait for embarrassing the person. It depends on the person and context. I was often teased like this by people in school because I was quite susceptible to emotional manipulation. The note is not asking the person out. The note is asking for a reaction to a hypothetical situation without any commitment to actually asking. The intelligent reply is an equally indecisive hypothetical response saying “if you’re uncommitted, so am I, try again” while also protecting from the potential for a trap. Plus if the person does not have the depth to understand the volley, the answer is a solid no.





  • j4k3@lemmy.worldtoAsklemmy@lemmy.mlWhat's a weird saying?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    “scientists say…”

    They aren’t some unified entity. They don’t even agree amongst themselves on most things if one digs deep enough. While there is some interpretation of the data involved, most people that use the phrase “Scientists say…” are essentially saying “Objective observations done by several of the smartest humans have been argued over by several of their rivals resulting in…”

    Like, we should start calling them something like Observational Data Warriors ™ /s to put perspective on the magnitude of information and depth involved. You can have an opinion but you are a coward of no relevant value if you are not trained for battle and fighting on the front lines. So whatever nonsense you have to say results in you looking like a clown of no note.









  • This must be some cultural/language disconnect.

    My original comment is not really serious and straight forward. I am abstracting and rephrasing the story of Abraham in a more scientific and dark satirical humor. I’m pointing out the contradiction of holding up Abraham as some kind of faithful and loyal figure against his documented behavior. In essence, I am showing that he was a deeply flawed person that most people would condemn in the present world of cultural norms. I’m also specifically obliterating the junction point of all Abrahamic faiths to invalidate all of them equally. Such a statement will be dismissed for various reasons by anyone that is dogmatic, but this information places a seed of doubt in some that might help them navigate away from the blindness of dogma.

    In a way, I am doing this out of kindness. I am attacking the narrative at the most neutral point possible and I am humanizing the individual that is at the foundation of the mythos. If this point in the chain of religious teaching is so deeply flawed, everything else in that chain lacks a grounding in truth.

    I exist in this kind of abstracted functional thought space. This type of functional thought is one of the more rare outliers, but is still neurotypical. I encourage you to look into the spectrum of functional thought and learn to appreciate the variety of people, what motivates them, and how it is difficult for everyone to relate to some of the different forms of functional thought. You likely care far more about inner personal interactions, relationships, your sense of judgment of others as entities, and think in more polarized absolutes. I am abstract in everything. I see you as a collection of changing actions and statistics. I am good at big picture connections across many contexts and spaces and am driven only by my many curiosities. You and I are likely opposites that struggle to relate to each other. You will likely struggle to understand my abstractions as much as I lack the emotional depth and development to understand what you see and experience with others. We can still learn from and appreciate the diversity of thought and ideas and try to understand how others view the world.

    Don’t feel awkward. I appreciate you for who you are.

    Yes, I am the librarian… and I like it! :)