Fun fact, be careful around exposed roots from fallen trees, especially if people are messing around nearby. There can be a lot of tension stored in the roots trying to stand even a long dead stump back up / gravity, and if something gives, you can become trapped under the tree.
I had a friend who’s niece, an American, was able to travel to use these. It was a difficult path to research and get these services, as well as expensive, but it definitely helped them a lot.
Man, reading the hacker news comments is grim. A deeply cynical and shallow series of takes on an interesting subject.
Imo, the true fallacy of using AI for journalism or general text, lies not so much in generative AI’s fundamental unreliability, but rather it’s existence as an affordable service.
Why would I want to parse through AI generated text on times.com, when for free, I could speak to some of the most advanced AI on bing.com or openai’s chat GPT or Google bard or a meta product. These, after all, are the back ends that most journalistic or general written content websites are using to generate text.
To be clear, I ask why not cut out the middleman if they’re just serving me AI content.
I use AI products frequently, and I think they have quite a bit of value. However, when I want new accurate information on current developments, or really anything more reliable or deeper than a Wikipedia article, I turn exclusively to human sources.
The only justification a service has for serving me generated AI text, is perhaps the promise that they have a custom trained model with highly specific training data. I can imagine, for example, weather.com developing highly specific specialized AI models which tie into an in-house llm and provide me with up-to-date and accurate weather information. The question I would have in that case would be why am I reading an article rather than just being given access to the llm for a nominal fee? At some point, they are not no longer a regular website, they are a vendor for a in-house AI.
This is bloody hilarious 🤣
It sounds really cool, but I’ve honestly had issues installing it on two PCs now on two separate occasions separated by a couple months. Issues I didn’t have installing Ubuntu. The installer would fail to complete. I’m not a Linux power user, and while I tried debugging for a few hours, I gave up.
This article is actually an interesting critique of the original studies analytics which suggest that such an effect perhaps doesn’t actually exist, or at least was not demonstrated scientifically.
I actually use this app, just purely out of laziness (i only listen to a few podcast). It plays audio, but Christ, the few times Ive used it to search for new things it’s total garbage. I’ve been served podcast episodes with broken playback, the search results are hardly relevant, and there is no way to refine results.
Thanks for the PSA. If anyone has a lightweight recommended alternative please hit me up!
I’m not anti ai, I use it generative ai all of the time, and I actually come from a family of professional artists myself ( though I am not ). I agree that its a tool which is useful; however, I disagree that it is not destructive or harmful to artist simply because it is most effective in thier hands.
it concentrates the power of creativity into firms which can afford to produce and distribute ai tools. While ai models are getting smaller, there are frequently licensing issues involved (not copywrite, but simply utilizing the tools for profit) in these small models. We have no defined roadmap for the Democratization of these tools, and most signs point towards large compute requirements.
it enables artist to effectively steal the intellectual labor of other artist. Just because you create cool art with it doesn’t mean it’s right for you to scrape a book or portfolio to train your ai. This is purely for practical reasons. Artists today work thier ass of to make the very product ai stands to consolidate and distribute for prennies to the dollar.
you fail to recognize that possibility that I support ai but oppose its content being copywritable purely because firms would immediately utilize this to evade licensing work. Why pay top dollar for a career concept artist’s vision when you can pay a starting liberal arts grad pennies to use Adobe suit to generate images trained in said concept artists?
Yes, that liberal arts grad deserves to get paid, but they also deserve any potential whatsoever of career advancement.
Now imagine instead if new laws required that generative ai license thier inputs in order to sell for profit? Sure, small generative ai would still scrape the Internet to produce art, but it would create a whole new avenue for artist to create and license art. Advanced generative ai may need smaller datasets, and small teams of artist may be able to utilize and license boutique models.
I disagree with this reductionist argument. The article essentially states that because ai generation is the “exploration of latent space,” and photography is also fundamentally the “exploration of latent space,” that they are equivalent.
It disregards the intention of copywriting. The point isn’t to protect the sanctity or spiritual core of art. The purpose is to protect the financial viability of art as a career. It is an acknowledgment that capitalism, if unregulated, would destroy art and make it impossible to pursue.
Ai stands to replace artist in a way which digital and photography never really did. Its not a medium, it is inference. As such, if copywrite was ever good to begin with, it should oppose ai until compromises are made.
I think my lead deferred it as a case covered by code inspection. So… probably not! I don’t work at ge anymore 😁
While investigating an uncovered node in some aviation datalink software, I discovered a 15 year old comment from 1993 along the lines of, “this function never runs, I’ll fix it later.” I wish will all my heart I could have heard their voice. Even if just for a moment.
As per the original agreement, it’s a violation of contract, but I do feel like it’s an unusual step to shotgun the relationship with the artist, considering that the installation did make money overall.
In another article, it seemed the artist was having difficult paying the money back. It’s all sort of strange. Like, wasn’t the mission accomplished?
My hope is that the mechanization of the written word / artistry will result in such a deludge of low tier nonsense that the people of earth will just stop using the Internet.
Then it can just be me and you ❤️
I just dump a liter of bleach in the upper deck and remove the seat. Nothing cleans you up better than a good swirl.