And you showed that you don’t understand complementary colors, just like AI. Because the above color circle is wrong. Why? Because of tests like the afterimage test (Example: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/da/7c/fb/da7cfba87ffdc8f426953397162329b4.gif), proving that purple (like pictured above) can never be the complementary color to yellow, it always has to be a deep blue. It doesn’t matter if it’s additive colors or subtractive colors you’re using (Afterimage tests work both passive and active) because in the end, it’s all only about light hitting our L/M/S-cones and how our brains work when it comes to interpreting the signals from those cones (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_(color). Metamerism explains why engineers chose perceptually equidistant cyan/magenta/yellow for (simple) printing (“Subtractive colors”) and perceptually equidistant red/green/blue for active emitting devices like cameras and displays (“Active colors”). And if you now say “But bro, I see a green shifting towards blue in the afterimage test” - didn’t you wonderful AI tell you about the Abney effect? Weird. It’s all well known and documented on the web which has been used to train your wonderful AI. But yeah - without being able to understand all of that, there is no way your wonderful AI can tell you which one of all those color circles is the correct one (And there is only one because it does not violate the CIE 1931 color space). It’s up to you to either learn and understand - or to blindly follow a LLM which sticks to green being the complementary color to red. Because all the LLM can do is repeating the garbage it has been trained with. Because it’s nothing more than a stochastic parrot. Your choice.
Additive colors -> active light emitter. Which should be obvious. But yeah, you simply lack the ability to think beyond what AI tells you. You understand nothing. You’re nothing mote than a stochastic parrot yourself. Enjoy your daily rock.
😂 alright well, you’ve been corrected and proven wrong, with sources and screenshots. And clearly you’re getting a teeny bit upset over it. Sorry! There’s nothing wrong with learning something new, and its okay that you had made a mistake.
This was a fun rabbit hole to go down! I tend to agree with most of the takes here on Lemmy but the complete AI derision is pretty wild and unfounded in reality. I have plenty of concerns about the tech but to say it’s useless you’d have to really not even have tried it out to see for yourself. I appreciate your patience, dedication to the truth, willingness to explain, and experimental attitude here.
This was a super bizarre case of “the neutral networks that are a predictive model of all of the world’s knowledge don’t share my belief that only one specific color model is valid, therefore they suck” 😂
And you showed that you don’t understand complementary colors, just like AI. Because the above color circle is wrong. Why? Because of tests like the afterimage test (Example: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/da/7c/fb/da7cfba87ffdc8f426953397162329b4.gif), proving that purple (like pictured above) can never be the complementary color to yellow, it always has to be a deep blue. It doesn’t matter if it’s additive colors or subtractive colors you’re using (Afterimage tests work both passive and active) because in the end, it’s all only about light hitting our L/M/S-cones and how our brains work when it comes to interpreting the signals from those cones (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_(color). Metamerism explains why engineers chose perceptually equidistant cyan/magenta/yellow for (simple) printing (“Subtractive colors”) and perceptually equidistant red/green/blue for active emitting devices like cameras and displays (“Active colors”). And if you now say “But bro, I see a green shifting towards blue in the afterimage test” - didn’t you wonderful AI tell you about the Abney effect? Weird. It’s all well known and documented on the web which has been used to train your wonderful AI. But yeah - without being able to understand all of that, there is no way your wonderful AI can tell you which one of all those color circles is the correct one (And there is only one because it does not violate the CIE 1931 color space). It’s up to you to either learn and understand - or to blindly follow a LLM which sticks to green being the complementary color to red. Because all the LLM can do is repeating the garbage it has been trained with. Because it’s nothing more than a stochastic parrot. Your choice.
There is no one “correct” color circle. And your misguided beliefs about color theory do not have anything to do with LLMs.
By the way, they’re called “additive colors”, not “active colors”. 🙃
Additive colors -> active light emitter. Which should be obvious. But yeah, you simply lack the ability to think beyond what AI tells you. You understand nothing. You’re nothing mote than a stochastic parrot yourself. Enjoy your daily rock.
😂 alright well, you’ve been corrected and proven wrong, with sources and screenshots. And clearly you’re getting a teeny bit upset over it. Sorry! There’s nothing wrong with learning something new, and its okay that you had made a mistake.
This was a fun rabbit hole to go down! I tend to agree with most of the takes here on Lemmy but the complete AI derision is pretty wild and unfounded in reality. I have plenty of concerns about the tech but to say it’s useless you’d have to really not even have tried it out to see for yourself. I appreciate your patience, dedication to the truth, willingness to explain, and experimental attitude here.
This was a super bizarre case of “the neutral networks that are a predictive model of all of the world’s knowledge don’t share my belief that only one specific color model is valid, therefore they suck” 😂