Comments on: Deep-fake deepthots

By: Didact

Didact — Sun, 22 Dec 2024 11:05:36 +0000

In reply to RobertW.

34% advantage to the UNBELIEVABLE BABE phase

GOOD point.

By: Odnams Razor

Odnams Razor — Sat, 21 Dec 2024 04:57:34 +0000

“ It would not be difficult for Ye Olde Didacte to feed that entire dataset into a large language model, train it to write and speak exactly the way I do, and then build an avatar on top of that, which mimics the face and movements of the HALO 4 Ur-Didact perfectly.”
.
you know what the obvious giveaway would be?
.
the Friday THOT post would be on time … but still apologizing for being late.
.
.
.
“The basic idea is to generate a hyper-realistic AI influenza that bridges the “uncanny valley”, and looks (and acts) every bit as realistic as a real woman”
.
eh, one of the primary UNrealistic parts of the AI-thots is the absurdly voluminous boobage. and the AI certainly didn’t pick that up from a general scan of the available data, even given an Instaham bias. very few women, even those who make a living off of their figures, even the enhanced ones, very few of them have Dolly Parton / Lynda Carter dimensions.
.
it’s obvious that DD cup sizes isn’t a data set issue, it’s a programming choice.
.
having said all that, i have to say that the Fly Emirates shirt is really on the sweet spot for me.

By: Randale6

Randale6 — Sat, 21 Dec 2024 00:21:48 +0000

More and more I become convinced of the rightness of the Roman way…woman as property, either of the father or the husband. Every other option seems to be worse by way of comparison.

By: RobertW

RobertW — Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:35:29 +0000

Reinforcing the notion that digital babes will have the upper hand on the real girls:

Avg like score on the attractive yet absurd phase: 259
Avg like score on the realistic and demure phase: 171
34% advantage to the UNBELIEVABLE BABE phase

Why does this matter?
Women have always complained about unrealistic proportions in supermodels, why is this different?
Heidi Klum, Kate Upton, & Emily Ratajacommunistkowski all have one common trait: Limited shelf life. They draw attention and then they phase out for the next hot thing.

Digitals, run by omegas pimping in their lairs, have a shelf life measured in decades, not days. They won’t age out and they can keep making ‘fresh style’ content. The THOTS today have a distinct flair visually, if you hit the T&A’s from even pre-covid you can see a ‘”It’s an older influencer pic sir, but it still checks out’ flavor.

A strong first-mover advantage is present. Whoever can be the Paris Hilton of these digichicks, get on top, can stay on top. Decades of harvesting simps money. Lush offers AI bots for this purpose. Then when you’re done, you cash out and she’s a crypto asset, like a business, you can liquidate to some other interested party. One year it’ll be Bud Light trying to reclaim lost glories, another it will be Roxy putting ‘her’ to work to model their widgets.

Real women cannot compete, even if it is Helen herself.

The only way to win is not to play. In the future, self-control will be the premiere super power of any man.

By: pkudude99

pkudude99 — Fri, 20 Dec 2024 05:03:07 +0000

I follow a few different “AI Artist” accounts on Twixter and as a result I see a lot of AI pics and have become rather adept at being able to tell at a glance if something’s AI or not…. but even I have to admit that in the past couple of months it’s been getting harder and harder to tell anymore. I save some of the “good ones” to a gallery folder and my photo viewer app has an “on this day” gallery that it shows me what I’ve saved over the years. The AI pics from a year ago (they really only started showing up in the past 18 months or so now, though older pics obviously had filters) are all still so incredibly obvious to me, and yet I recall my reasoning for saving them in the 1st place was usually “this looks so realistic” and yet now I kinda cringe that I thought that back then….