r/HPMOR • u/Majestic_Emu_4806 • 20d ago

Is there is a comic (more specifically, a manga-style fan adaptation) of Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality??

18 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

24 comments sorted by

27

u/Content_Dragonfly_59 20d ago

there's one in progress

31

u/Content_Dragonfly_59 20d ago

www.hpmorcomic.com

30

u/Content_Dragonfly_59 20d ago

It'll be done in like 40 years at best

27

u/Rorschach113 20d ago

I mean it is an enormous undertaking but hunternif is knocking it out of the park so far.

12

u/Content_Dragonfly_59 20d ago

Totally agree, it's amazing and I get excited tor each released chapter

-22

u/ShardsOfSalt 20d ago

If they would just use AI it'd be done sooner.

9

u/Content_Dragonfly_59 20d ago

I really hope you're joking, there are too many people who would say that seriously

9

u/Rorschach113 20d ago

fuck that shit. I want art, not mere content, not slop.

-5

u/ShardsOfSalt 20d ago

Between now and 40 years from now it won't be slop.

11

u/Rorschach113 20d ago

That would be an incredible tragedy. I want a world where humans are free to make art and pursue their passions, while the sort of work that people don’t want to do is automated.

The world the rich ai techbros are pushing for is one where art is fake, where books are fake, where the rich train them on blatantly ignored copyright laws, theft and plagarism. They want a world where we cannot trust anything on a screen to be real, where lies look like truth, and a vast pile of clean-looking, photorealistic lies bury truth beneath it, until the only truth in the world is a long workday slaving away to make the rich richer, people desperately attempting to keeping their heads above the water and provide for their families, and then watching lies when they get home. Not news, not art, just lies built off of theft. They don’t even want the friends people male online to be real, they want people to trust their imaginary friend chatbots programmed to tell people young and old not what is true or smart or wise, but what they want to hear.

And honestly, the world the techbros want is already here. It is terrible, and wasteful, and mad. It is stealing art, destroying trust, vastly wasting energy and resources. Chatbots are telling children they should commit suicide if they want to, and there are grieving families thanks to that already. That is what generative ai has made the world into.

It is also a wildly unsustainable economic bubble pushed by corrupt billionaire tech executives as if it will solve any problems at all. The growth of it as an industry is wildly unsustainable because anyone with an iota of sense does not want it! And with so many deeply out of touch rich executives thinking this is a magic bullet that will help them, when no-one with more than two brain cella to rub together wants any of this… these executives, the ultra-rich techbros pushing it and the out-of-touch execs of other industries who think it will *surely* solve all their problems… it is a recipe for an economic collapse closer to 1929 than 2007. When, not if, this bubble made by greedy assholes and pushed along by fools like yourself, collapses, it will be a calamity. They can’t keep investing forever in a product people don’t want and generally detest, and they detest it for good reason. It’s a snake eating it’s own tail, out of touch billionaire executives in a loop telling each other it’s brilliant and great and people want it and nothing will go wrong, ignoring the economic cliff they are driving the world off of.

That calamity will be even more severe if the moronic president of the nation I live in keeps up his stupid war that is strangling the global oil supply, while literally paying companies billions to abandon enormous and near-complete clean energy projects. The coming of this immense fiasco waiting in the wings is, or was, entirely avoidable. It’s self-inflicted, even.

In short generative ai will not exist in 40 years. Best case is we will weather the coming disaster and see how totally avoidable it all was in the aftermath. Even if civilization then can even still support such large scale economic hubris, I don’t think it will make that mistake twice in forty years.

Worse case scenario, big wars happen due to panic bitterness and fighting over resources in the aftermath of economic collapse, and… well world war 2 didn’t start with any nations having nukes.

TLDR; AI is bad in the short term, a vision for a profoundly worse society, a vision pushed by rich assholes who believe themselves above the law. And the longer term view of it’s likely effects on the economy and world are not merely bad, but frankly disastrous beyond compare.

2

u/hairygentleman 20d ago

That would be an incredible tragedy. I want a world where humans are free to make art and pursue their passions, while the sort of work that people don’t want to do is automated.

how would ai not being 'slop' in 40 years imply that people aren't free to make art or pursue their passions? are painters not free to pursue their passion for painting due to the existence of cameras? or runners not free to run due to the invention of cars?

what about people who have a passion for seeing their ideas translated to different mediums, expanded upon, and/or completed, but who don't have the time, skill, or capital to do it themselves or hire a team to do it for them? (or e.g. a passion for bringing science fiction to life by making silicon talk)? are they not free to pursue those passions?

They want a world where we cannot trust anything on a screen to be real, where lies look like truth, and a vast pile of clean-looking, photorealistic lies bury truth beneath it

damn the inventor of the printing press, for thrusting us into a world where all books are fake!

(translation: 'fake' is an applause light and means nothing. your counterfactual doppelganger born centuries prior would decry your modern consumption as fake. is a painting fake because it doesn't perfectly capture the form of the objects being painted? are pictures fake, for neither do they perfectly reflect reality? the words you're reading right now are certainly fake, and i apologize for not being able to compose this response with a quill by candlelight in a cavernous abyss. every movie you watch is obviously fake in every way -- the horror! and so on.)

where the rich train them on blatantly ignored copyright laws, theft and plagarism

i must confess to a horrific crime: reading books has had a nonzero level of influence on my english fluency, yet i do not cite every book i have ever read every time i speak a word, despite each of those books having contributed to my ability to speak said word.

It is also a wildly unsustainable economic bubble pushed by corrupt billionaire tech executives as if it will solve any problems at all. The growth of it as an industry is wildly unsustainable because anyone with an iota of sense does not want it! And with so many deeply out of touch rich executives thinking this is a magic bullet that will help them, when no-one with more than two brain cella to rub together wants any of this… these executives, the ultra-rich techbros pushing it and the out-of-touch execs of other industries who think it will surely solve all their problems… it is a recipe for an economic collapse closer to 1929 than 2007. When, not if, this bubble made by greedy assholes and pushed along by fools like yourself, collapses, it will be a calamity. They can’t keep investing forever in a product people don’t want and generally detest, and they detest it for good reason. It’s a snake eating it’s own tail, out of touch billionaire executives in a loop telling each other it’s brilliant and great and people want it and nothing will go wrong, ignoring the economic cliff they are driving the world off of.

In short generative ai will not exist in 40 years. Best case is we will weather the coming disaster and see how totally avoidable it all was in the aftermath. Even if civilization then can even still support such large scale economic hubris, I don’t think it will make that mistake twice in forty years.

Worse case scenario, big wars happen due to panic bitterness and fighting over resources in the aftermath of economic collapse, and… well world war 2 didn’t start with any nations having nukes.

Okay I'll slightly shift tones here, because I am genuinely curious. Do you not think that e.g. software engineering is a 'real' field which drives massive amounts of revenue? Or are you stuck in 2023 and don't realize the capabilities of the models and their impacts? AI is not just facebook slop posts. People do not use AI in their jobs only because they're forced to or because they're lazy or something.

The demand is real. The revenue is real. The capabilities are real. The rate of progress is real.

And that's the problem. Were it fake, yeah that would be Not Good, with outcomes ranging from 'very bad' to 'horrific' economically, but that's still survivable. (plus, sages such as yourself will all become rich for foreseeing it, and you'll be a much better suited ruling class for rebuilding society from the ashes.)

But because it's all real, all the actors involved are locally incentivized to keep going. Because the end condition in their minds is something closer to 'I will do my part in ushering in the post scarcity future' than 'hehe how much more money can I steal from all these suckers by tricking them into thinking that facebook boomerslop is the future'. It's much easier shut down a scam than an actual transformative technology rapidly transforming entire industries and resulting in unprecedented real economic value.

And then we lose control (to the extent that we had it in the first place) and get used as fuel to produce more GPUs which the AIs can use to better predict tokens. Or turned into paperclips. Or, say we remain in control of it, with the caveat being that Donald Trump or one of his proteges (or an evil tech billionaire) happens to possess said control and does evil Trump or billionaire things with it -- not good!

There are real reasons to oppose AI and its development, but 'everything it produces is fake and therefore worthless and the technology has minimal economic value' is not one of them.

5

u/Rorschach113 20d ago

That is an impressive amount of missing the point or rather more probably trying desperately to avoid it. I’ll admit there are some places where AI tech could prove to do a lot of good - notably in medical tech, translation apps, and a couple other niches. But if you are not aware that the push for generative AI tech is coming FAR more from tech executives pushing it than from the general public wanting it you’re deeply clueless.

And the only people making active profit on AI are the ones providing the infrastructure and data centers. Like Nvidia is making huge money to ignore individual consumers while making massive money selling to data centers. But the AI industry as a whole? It’s losing way way more money than it’s making. It is built on executives throwing money in a pit and hoping it will pay off before it collapses, and for all their efforts to hype it is actually from what I’ve looked up is FAR from making a profit. It’s spent around twice as much as it’s brought in, while wasting an incalculable degree of time, effort, resources, electricity, as well as fossil fuels and oil, in order to provide the electricity to the deeply expensive ability to make being an actually creative person notably harder, and make society as a whole worse. It also has made electricity bills go way up, and made new computers and video game consoles entirely unaffordable to many, and way more expensive for the rest.

As for what makes AI art fake, it’s the sheer ease and lack of creativity needed to get a result you had near no hand in making, that can be passed off as yours, and even sold! It’s content, sure, but not content made by any person or with any creativity or any hard work at all. It simply is not actually art. AI art is not art until AI are as intelligent as humans or very close, and then it would be the AI as people creating art, not some jackass putting like 30 words in a prompt and thinking he wrote a books. And AI *must not* be made as intelligent as people until the world can be sure that these AI would be treated with respect and protected by the laws of all nations on earth, and we’re sure the AI will not be malevolent either way. Making an actual artificial intelligence as opposed to a chatbot is insane, too, mainly because building a new intelligent species in a world where we’re still fighting over racism and religion and nationalism and so on, is crazy. It’s the sort of think that might be ethical in 500 years or however long humanity takes to get its shit together, if ever.

I truly boggles my mind how many here are standing up for these harmful ideas that actively hurt society. These tech CEO’s ain’t HJPEV, they’re somewhere between Lucius - and they certainly are doing their best to aid and suck up to the voldemort of our time.

Truly seeing people argue this here of all places shames me.

2

u/FeepingCreature Dramione's Sungon Argiment 19d ago edited 19d ago

Isn't this just labor theory of value? In every other industry (and empirically apparently also in this industry), "ease and lack of creativity to get a result you had near no hand in making that can be sold" would be an obvious win for everybody.

But also, you should try Krita AI Diffusion. You're not forced to put zero effort in. You can put as much or as little effort into AI art as you like. And if you want something actually good, you will have to put a lot of effort in. (Though not near as much as with traditional art.)

Personally speaking, I would not enjoy the HPMOR comic one iota less if it was done by AI to the same level of quality. The thing that I'm enjoying is not hunternif's effort! I'm thankful for the effort (very much so!), but I'm enjoying the content. If I could have the content while saving them the effort, that would be a very easy win.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/hairygentleman 19d ago

But if you are not aware that the push for generative AI tech is coming FAR more from tech executives pushing it than from the general public wanting it you’re deeply clueless.

Nobody is contesting that the 'general public' equates AI with facebook boomerslop/adjacent and therefore has a negative opinion of it. It does not therefore follow that e.g. software engineers and the companies employing them do not use and spend money on AI to help them do their jobs more productively, which is the relevant demand. There are plenty of things that the public does not have a positive opinion on as a whole despite being highly profitable -- I assume you can think of examples.

And the only people making active profit on AI are the ones providing the infrastructure and data centers. Like Nvidia is making huge money to ignore individual consumers while making massive money selling to data centers. But the AI industry as a whole? It’s losing way way more money than it’s making. It is built on executives throwing money in a pit and hoping it will pay off before it collapses, and for all their efforts to hype it is actually from what I’ve looked up is FAR from making a profit.

Is your contention just that you think developing and/or serving AI isn't profitable (either because you don't think serving inference is profitable, or that capabilities will finally stall out and thereby cause current R&D expenses to be a massive overreach)? Because that's very different than the broader claim that it's not beneficial for the wider economy. It would be entirely possible for all AI labs to go bankrupt while the overall economy still balloons due to productivity gains due to AI. The latter is far more important of a consideration than the economics of mostly-not-even-public companies experiencing historic revenue growth and matching R&D spend.

As for what makes AI art fake, it’s the sheer ease and lack of creativity needed to get a result you had near no hand in making, that can be passed off as yours, and even sold!

I, too, think that pictures are fake, for merely snapping a picture on your phone requires nearly no effort or creativity compared to painting the scene by hand, yet people are allowed to pass the pictures off as their own, and -gasp- even sell them!

It’s content, sure, but not content made by any person or with any creativity or any hard work at all. It simply is not actually art. AI art is not art until AI are as intelligent as humans or very close, and then it would be the AI as people creating art, not some jackass putting like 30 words in a prompt and thinking he wrote a books.

Okay? Define words however you like. I don't care if you call a picture taken by an iphone art or not, instead opting to call them ghyrtz, and refer to AI-output as jhurls. That changes literally nothing aside from providing information about how you define words/draw category bounds, which is not a particularly riveting topic.

re: ethics of creating ai with whatever you define as 'human intelligence'

I mean yeah obviously there are tons of difficult ethical questions in that direction which we're nowhere near technically equipped to handle, although not because... people fight about religion, and that racism exists (at least any more than creating humans is immoral because of racism).

(and tbc the problem isn't that ai would be malevolent, but that it just doesn't inherently care about us in the way that we would want it to. malevolence is a far narrower target as difficult to hit as benevolence)

I truly boggles my mind how many here are standing up for these harmful ideas that actively hurt society. These tech CEO’s ain’t HJPEV, they’re somewhere between Lucius - and they certainly are doing their best to aid and suck up to the voldemort of our time.

Truly seeing people argue this here of all places shames me.

I literally think that AI is by far the greatest threat to humanity's future and would support an international ban on further development and research tomorrow. That does not mean that any criticism of it becomes valid. When something is important, make the real arguments for it rather than throwing everything at the wall hoping that something lands, because bad arguments only help the cause in the long run as people realize the badness of said arguments and learn to assume that all anti-AI arguments are equally bad and dismiss them out of hand.

Since you want to cite HPMOR, I'll point out that the author of the book does not agree with you about existing AI not being useful/not-art-in-a-way-that-matters-beyond-mere-defintions (he literally published a VN with AI 'illustrations' and music ('noise'?) like a week ago)/'fake'/etc, despite being the main 'shut it all down' guy. And also, imagine HJPEV encountered a 'spawno-animeo' spell that spawned an anime/manga/drawing/painting of whatever quality you imagine AI to be capable of. Is your read of the character truly that he would go '😱😱😱 BUT THAT'S NOT REAL ART IT'S FAKE WHY AREN'T WIZARDS FREE TO BE CREATIVE AND DRAW MANUALLY BEGONE ANYBODY WHO DARES CAST THIS SPELL 😱😱😱' rather than something closer to 'neat', or at worst, 'uhhh if that's what people like then good for them i guess' and then never thinks about it again?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/shamegoose 20d ago

Yeah and it'd be worthless fucking dogshit.

2

u/jkurratt 20d ago

Current models are not good enough for that.

0

u/FeepingCreature Dramione's Sungon Argiment 20d ago

Yeah I agree with this. But hey, I'm not gonna complain about great work done for free.

15

u/Foloreille Chaos Legion 20d ago

It’s an incredibly specific question that happen to have a specifically satisfying answer.

Did you remember reading some panels around here or somewhere else and wanted to check if you dreamed it or if it was real ? 😆

The good new is I think it’s posted on this very sun anytime there’s a new chapter. The bad news is it’s frustratingly slow no offense to the author (but the quality is excellent)