>>44730 >help to implement intentionally-lethal designs. But we're not? Posting aerospace/ship ads from the 20th century doesn't mean Galatea can now fly and do bombing runs >But they are weapons of war, and I simply don't want that type of general character to be present on this board. So what, now we can't even mention the military/tactical equipment, even from a purely marketing analysis? You yourself admit you like the designs, clearly they have a place in the Marketing/Advertising Development Thread. These are just a gallery of posters, nothing more. It's no more militaristic than an aerospace museum

>>44730 >Security topics are fine. The point wasn't the security guard line, it was that I took one of the posters, the third one in >>44713, saw what it said, and I took inspiration from it. The poster communicates that one plane can fill all those roles, and it appeals to militaries on a limited budget. And Galatea has multiple uses, hence the full name, Galatea Multipurpose Companion Maid Robot

>>44730 >Oh this isn't in any way directed at him (and I agree with your assessment) Could've fooled me >>44715

I'm going to speak frankly and from the heart, but this feels censorious and even a little crazy. Even if I posted a modern military ad that said something like "Join the army and make great things" and I said we can take inspiration from this for robowaifu ads, it doesn't mean I want this board to join the army?!

>>44730 >I simply don't want that type of character to be present on this board I see what you mean, but we shouldn't shut out the issue entirely either. Many huge advances in robotics and AI have been and are being made by the military industrial complex (and not just ours). If we want to keep up to date and on the same page, we need to be able to have some level of discussion on any relevant advances they make. It's possible to completely denounce violence and the MIC while also keeping tabs and using what we reasonably can to the board's benefit. I think this can extend to Greer's ad idea as well. If an idea the MIC has works, and it can be made into something nonviolent and beneficial to us, then I don't see the wisdom in simply discarding it. Of course, I'm not saying that should be all we talk about, nor should we even allow that discussion in every thread, but I believe there are acceptable times and places, and any rule made should have enough nuance to allow it. All of that being said, I'll enforce whatever you decide on regardless, but I think cracking down too hard is a mistake that would harm more than help. For the time being, we could make a stop-gap rule to require that content be put behind a spoiler and give more time to talk things out. >>44734 I don't disagree (see above), though I can empathize with Chobitsu's desire to keep this board as peaceful as possible. The current global escalation certainly isn't helping with matters either. We can't let this get to us though. There's bound to be a better way, and we're all reasonable enough to find it.

>>44737 >Many huge advances in robotics and AI have been and are being made by the military industrial complex (and not just ours). Agreed. Like it or not, the military drives innovation. And we're basically like those military RnD divisions, we put our heads together to make science fiction technology, into real life. >If an idea the MIC has works, and it can be made into something nonviolent and beneficial to us, then I don't see the wisdom in simply discarding it. Precisely >For the time being, we could make a stop-gap rule to require that content be put behind a spoiler and give more time to talk things out. I disagree. It's not like it's porn or gore. These are ads you would've found in magazines. >though I can empathize with Chobitsu's desire to keep this board as peaceful as possible. Well the good news is, it's not being "militarized". Posting posters and talking about things from an academic perspective isn't "militarization". Is history class or art studies "militarized"?

>>44737 >For the time being, we could make a stop-gap rule to require that content be put behind a spoiler and give more time to talk things out. Granted and agreed. I'll postpone this until the end of next weekend so we can talk this out further.

>>44740 So what, we have to now spoiler things that's not to your taste?

I'm going to just say it, but this is reminding me a lot of antis on Twitter

>>44730 I agree with the new rule. Robotics is already complex enough. We need to keep focus on robotgirls. Helpful content from other fields (marketing, anatomy books, etc.) is fine as external links in the proper threads. Posting it directly here as "inspiration" just splits attention.

>>44743 Splitting attention from what exactly? It's the Advertising thread. And threads die on 4chan, I obviously would want to preserve the pictures I can see that I'll have to keep all the pictures to myself. I would've loved to share my inspiration, but alas, we decided to act like liberal college students at the mere mention of the military

Sun Tzu says "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles."

I meant to respond by this evening to the posts ITT, but: a) We've extended it till next weekend, and b) The game's on rn in yidsrael. See you again soon. Cheers, Anons. :)

>>44719 I'd keep it simple. Anything that could reasonably be perceived as harmful should be banned. Example: High velocity projectiles that could penetrate skin should be banned here. Counter example: High speed projectiles which are unlikely to cause harm to people, (i.e. nets for catching rabbits) should be allowed. There's no way to produce a hard and fast rule that would cover all potentialities. Thus, nuance should be apart of the rule from the getgo. >>44730 I see what you mean and, for the most part, I agree. I think a good compromise would be adding a new description rule. In the propaganda thread, anons should be required to post details on what aspects of the posted propaganda could be useful. This would both remove the possibility of people celebrating weapons and, promote proper discussion that benefits our movement. >>44737 Agreed, ignorance won't help engineering. Though I am entirely against anything related to waifu causing harm, there's much potential to learn from MIC. Pretending Boston Dynamics doesn't exist because they've worked with the military would be to our detriment. >>44741 I think having a spoiler for anything that's explicitly military until Chobitsu returns is fair. Patience is a virtue. I will fight for your right to post without spoilers but, with context, once Chobitsu returns.

>>44751 Hi Kiwi! Good to see you again old pal. >keep it simple Great advice. I'll try to come up with preliminary wording. I'd appreciate every'non's feedback on it.

>3 : Don't promote weaponry here Simple as. We can discuss refining this further if necessary.

>>44782 I like it, as long as context is considered. Obviously, an ad for a plane from the 60s is not promotion

>>44783 Lol. Yes it is (roughly by-definition). :D

BTW, my apologies for not replying in detail to every'non's posts here. Pls forgive. :)

>>44785 What's "it" in this reply?

>>44782 I think we have slightly different ideas of what "promoting" means, but I get what you're going for. My position on the matter hasn't changed, I still think this is a bit too heavy-handed. >>44787 "It" means most of the ads you posted are on the wrong side of the new rule, except the Mallard and moon landing ones.

>>44790 >I think we have slightly different ideas of what "promoting" means, but I get what you're going for. I'm willing to entertain alternative wording, as I indicated. >I still think this is a bit too heavy-handed. Whether it seems so or no, I specifically worded this to be as vague on the topic as reasonable (in accord with @Kiwi and your own positions): >"promote" Subject to lots of interpretations (to a fault). >"weaponry" While (hopefully) rather more-specific, still contains some ambiguity. >>44787 >What's "it" in this reply? >>44790 ^

>>44792 I was thinking of "promoting" as coming from the intent of the poster, rather than the actual attached material. An ad is still a promotion though (even if it's not being used to advertise), so while it might not be a perfect word, it's the best for this case. Plus, it's not unusual for us to discuss where a rule starts and ends whenever a new scenario comes up anyways, so it all works out. To wrap this all back around: What should we do about the posted ads that started this? We could delete them per the rule, or leave them up as context for it. Personally, I'm in favor of the latter.

We have enough censorship out there, now we have to deal with it in here

>>44795 Please understand, this is nothing to do with you personally, GreerTech. And I have been censoring things here for years (chaos would (((quickly ensue))) otherwise, of course). This just happens to be the latest hot topic. >>44794 >I was thinking of "promoting" as coming from the intent of the poster, rather than the actual attached material. Yes, I agree with that. >Personally, I'm in favor of the latter. I agree. Let's leave them be. >Plus, it's not unusual for us to discuss where a rule starts and ends whenever a new scenario comes up anyways, so it all works out. Fair enough. <---> @Kiwi , @Greentext anon: Any suggested wording changes to the rule #3?

>>44782 Elegant and succinct, nicely put. >>44783 >>44785 This should be an edge case. If sufficient context is given in relation to robowaifu endeavors, it should be acceptable. >>44794 Looks like we agree, though I believe context beyond implications of where it's posted are needed. >>44798 >3 : Don't promote weaponry, all posts featuring weapons must clearly be in service of robowaifu. This way, nuance is made clearer. I'd also add something along the lines of non-vehicular weaponry must be spoilered. Tanks and planes are less likely to be problematic than a pistol in terms of public perception.

>>44798 >>44799 >Please understand, this is nothing to do with you personally, GreerTech. And I have been censoring things here for years (chaos would (((quickly ensue))) otherwise, of course). This just happens to be the latest hot topic. Okay I understand. I agree with the current interpretation of the rule. I'm glad we cleared this up. When I post any advertising inspiration in the future (of any type), I will make sure to label it, as well as explain what in the pictures inspire me.

>>44799 >3 : Don't promote weaponry, all posts featuring weapons must clearly be in service of robowaifu. I like this wording, and I think this should be the final rule. It has the spirit of the law, but it doesn't unnecessarily hamper us.

>>44799 >3 : Don't promote weaponry, all posts featuring weapons must clearly be in service of robowaifu. I think that wording just makes the rule look like it's contradicting itself. If we expand on the wording of the original rule: >"Don't promote weaponry. Concepts derived from weaponry may be acceptable, but must be nonviolent." Would carry the spirit of the rule much more clearly in my opinion. That said, I'm also fine with the original wording. There's a merit to keeping it short and simple, as Chobitsu said earlier.

>>44802 There's no contradiction whatsoever. Posting something isn't necessarily a promotion of something, especially when it's looked at from an academic lens. Anything that helps the cause of robowaifus should be allowed.

>>44803 Take another look at Kiwi's proposed wording and consider this: What does "in service of" mean if the thing serving (a weapon) isn't allowed? How does a post serve a robowaifu without promoting a weapon, if the post "features" both? It looks contradictory. My own proposed wording stresses nonviolence and that we only need and allow "concepts". This, in my opinion, clarifies what does and does not constitute an acceptable post. >Posting something isn't necessarily a promotion of something I don't disagree, but posting an actual weapon is still banned, hence why I used "concepts".

>>44804 >How does a post serve a robowaifu without promoting a weapon, if the post "features" both? >but posting an actual weapon is still banned Because we're not liberal school teachers, so we can obviously see a weapon without it being a promotion

>>44804 >How does a post serve robowaifu >It looks contradictory. By helping the cause of robowaifu, it's not that difficult. Kiwi's wording still follows the spirit of the law without being too draconian and allowing for common sense to prevail. Your wording will inevitably create conflict in the future

>>44805 Again, I don't disagree. I've already made my position on the matter clear. Regardless, Chobitsu has made it crystal clear that no weapons are to be posted. >>44806 My intent here is to make sure the rule as it exists is conveyed clearly. No matter what the wording is, the actual rule and its enforcement won't change unless Chobitsu changes his mind. That means no weapons.

>>44807 I'm fairly certain Chobitsu is not a liberal school teacher

We had this solved. No need to further complicate it and change the rule any further

>>44808 That isn't even remotely what I was saying or implying, please don't twist my words like that. I can't think of any way to make the matter as it stands any clearer, so I'll just leave it there.

>>44799 Thanks! :) >must be spoilered. Honestly, that was mostly just an accommodation towards @GreerTech in the specific case, given the fact he wasn't intentionally violating a known in that case. My original intent was to baleet them, but you and @Greentext anon convinced me otherwise. But basically, I simply don't want unequivocated weaponry displayed here at all. Again, there are literally 1'000s of forums celebrating that. Why should we contribute to it here? >>44802 >I think that wording just makes the rule look like it's contradicting itself. I have to agree. The essense of the new rule should be to clearly suppress weaponry here on /robowaifu/ . >>"Don't promote weaponry. Concepts derived from weaponry may be acceptable, but must be nonviolent." I agree that would be more-clear, while still maintaining some flexibility of interpretations. >>44804 >My own proposed wording stresses nonviolence and that we only need and allow "concepts". >This, in my opinion, clarifies what does and does not constitute an acceptable post. Agreed. >>44800 >I'm glad we cleared this up. >>44809 >We had this solved. No need to further complicate it and change the rule any further LOL. No we haven't, Anon. That's why we're having this council rn. >>44803 >Posting something isn't necessarily a promotion of something, especially when it's looked at from an academic lens. That's a fair point. >Anything That's a big word! :D We clearly can't go anywhere near that far, and maintain the spirit of the rule itself (ie, 'Don't promote weaponry here'). >>44806 >Your wording will inevitably create conflict in the future I think its rather the opposite, tbh. >>44808 Please give such hand-waving a rest, GreerTech. You're not helping with that, and it's insulting to the rest of us quite frankly. Your opinion matters and we're all considering it, rest assured. <---> @Kiwi Comments on @Greentext anon's suggested wording : ( >>44802 )?

>>44811 >We clearly can't go anywhere near that far, and maintain the spirit of the rule itself (ie, 'Don't promote weaponry here'). IMO, if it helps the cause of robowaifus without being illegal or immoral, it should be allowed. And as me and Kiwi pointed out, there is a huge gap between small arms/non-vehicle weapons, and planes/boats. One is a hot-button issue, the other is mostly uncontroversial and generally seen as cool. Even before this controversy, there was a Handheld Plasma Blaster Tactical Multitool that I made, that I refrained from posting here, because I understand not wanting small arms. But under this total blanket ban, my little brother's room would be forbidden because it has an F-22 poster on it >Please give such hand-waving a rest, GreerTech. You're not helping with that, and it's insulting to the rest of us quite frankly. Your opinion matters and we're all considering it, rest assured. The reason I say things like that, is because Greentext anon acts like anything remotely tactical is like a vampire seeing a cross. It's like going to a history museum or reading a history book. What's next, banning people because they ate their poptart in the shape of a gun? It would be very tragic and disappointing if /robowaifu/ becomes so strict, that this video becomes forbidden https://youtu.be/rrj8ZjcsKWA

>>44800 Great >>44802 >"Don't promote weaponry. Non-violent concepts derived from weaponry can be acceptable. I agree my initial variant was clunky. I think this new one is best. >>44804 I agree, I worded it poorly. This breakdown was helpful. I hope lessons learned from it help me write with greater clarity in the future. >>44811 >I simply don't want unequivocated weaponry displayed here at all. >>44812 I worry you're letting your emotions cloud your judgement and interpretation of what's written. We are still in arbitration with respect to this new rule and its proper usage. Please, have patience and afford your fellows grace. I assure you, no one here wants to go as far as you are implying. I understand and on some level, appreciate your passionate fervor. But, your brothers room wouldn't be forbidden for having an F22 poster, I also have an F22 poster. Neither of our rooms are allowed here unless they serve the greater cause of open-source robotics.

When I was a kid, I remember being shocked that there were domestic robots, but in the past, and wondered why there wasn't a modern version. Now, I made a robot of my own. https://youtu.be/tK6sqxT0ttQ

Thanks for your comments. Unless there's anything else then, I'll consider this council closed. I'll update the revised wording I've decided on this weekend sometime.

alogs /robowaifu/ shills "lol u can't get a gf" Trashchan /robowaifu/ shills https://youtu.be/A030wZ8kjyQ

>>44834 LMAO. I'm simply enjoying you're are troles too much rn to drop the banhammer on him. :D

I've been planning on dedicating my PC to running an AI and as much other offline functions as possible. (I just ) I'm trying to use the internet less in general. And recently I cam across a video called "This doomsday tech kit can run offline and off-grid, indefinitely" https://youtu.be/wAf0UVUhAD4 which I figured might contain a few things worthwhile that might be worth considering for my offline setup. And I did, but like every other channel that makes shit these days, he has to use a 3D printer, eating-up a big chunk of runtime, all for the sake of making... a box that's worse than a protective case he could have just bought off the shelf. I still haven't bought a new PC, but I got tired of waiting and moved all my old PC stuff to external drives and installed Pop!_OS. I'm only using wimpy laptop for internet stuff for now, and will keep the PC completely air-gapped past the initial setup. Besides music, movies, books, maybe some old games I want to run an AI as a sort of virtual waifu prototype, even if just a fairly simple AI companion like >>44816 but on a desktop. In time I'd like to reduce the number of things I'd need a keyboard and mouse for, relying entirely on cameras and mics, but I don't really know where to start. I thought I had more detailed plans in a document, but everything I've written is such an unorganized mess that I don't even really know what to do anymore other than transfer files to the PC after installing all the software I think I might need. The problem is I don't know what I might need anymore.

>>44859 POTD Welcome to the club, Anon! :D >The problem is I don't know what I might need anymore. I'd suggest -- for now -- that you don't be discriminating; get several YUGE harddrives, and just SAVE.EVERYTHING.ANON. May God bless us all here on /robowaifu/ . Cheers. :)

>>44860 >Welcome to the club, Anon! :D I've been posting here for years now... >I'd suggest -- for now -- that you don't be discriminating; get several YUGE harddrives I've been picking-up a new 5TB drive every few years now it seems. But I'm saying the last time I even tried to run an AI was so long ago that I've completely forgotten what to even do.

>>44861 I meant Team Data_Hoarders_R_Us ! :D >But I'm saying the last time I even tried to run an AI was so long ago that I've completely forgotten what to even do. Ahh, understood. Welp, start with the very link you provided, then grow from there I'd say. Also, there are numerous links and advice (mostly-dated now, I'd say) in our own AI-related threads. But there's probably hundreds if not thousands of tutorial-oriented posts on the Internet now on-topic with this. My struggles in the past with the dependency hell of Python has soured me to the language (at least for big libraries usage within it) such that I personally don't even look into anything that majorly requires it now. (Which, sadly, is 99.9% of the solutions out there, it seems.) >tl;dr Stick with AI solutions that are so-called "Edge Computing" -oriented, and you should be fine (these will likely always be C++ or C based, for obvious reasons). BTW, glad you're still with us, whoever you are! Cheers, Anon. :)

>>44859 >I'd like to reduce the number of things I'd need a keyboard and mouse for Have you tried looking into accessability software? Speech-to-text is a very mature field, and eye tracking and/or gestures could be used in place of finer mouse movements if you need to manipulate something directly. These can potentially help fill the gap by letting you do what your waifu can't (yet) while still removing a keyboard and mouse from the equation. It might also be possible to have her integrate with those tools, though I wouldn't be sure where to start with that. Aside from that, the best advice I have is to start small and just worry about getting one thing to work, then going from there.

>>44863 Great advice, Greentext anon. BTW, I've always liked that pic. That one specifically seems a newer version from the one I think I rember back in the day. Cheers, Anon. :)