Look lady you had a pretty good run with getting rich AND famous by marrying a rock star and you even leveraged a later in life tv career out of being that woman married to that guy but I seriously wouldn’t push it when your notoriety is on such tenuous grounds.
If everyone talks like this all the time and it influences how AI models produce text outputs, then those models are basically getting it right and would be indistinguishable from normal people since that’s how all people will speak.
Once upon a slurp slurp slurp
Why doesn’t the damaging and hot particulate matter in smoke do any harm to or otherwise clog up their spiracles like it does to the inner lining of lungs? I gather lungs are wet and also very delicate, but if they’re directly oxygenating their organs through these spiracles eventually it must get to somewhere wet and delicate for the smoke to get in and potentially harm.
I realise the dumbass here is the guy saying programmers are ‘cooked’, but there’s something kind of funny how the programmer talks about how people misunderstand the complexities of their job and how LLMs easily make mistakes because of an inability to understand the nuances of what he does everyday and understands deeply. They rightly point out how without their specialist oversight, AI agents would fail in ridiculous and spectacular ways, yet happily and vaguely adds as a throw away statement at the end “replacing other industries, sure.” with the exact same blitheness and lack of personal understanding with which ‘Ace’ proclaims all programmers cooked.
Will it actually kind of was ironically. I was going to try and make a go of it, but I was immensely worried I’d be caught in the act and having to maintain the channel flipping with the remote made things awkward too. When it suddenly tuned in consistently I thought I’d hit the jackpot but then I got so worried I’d leave evidence I flicked away from the channel again before I could really you know, get anything out of it.
Once I went on holiday in Europe as a young teen. The hotel room had a tv with like 2-3 free normal channels and extra channels including porn that you could access if you called the front desk and gave them credit card information. I definitely wasn’t going to do that since I didn’t have a credit card and this room was booked in my parents’ names, however the whole reason I knew about this was because I was flicking the through the normal channels simply because I was bored and I accidentally flipped past the porno channel. You weren’t supposed to be able to see anything on there because they want you to pay up for that so when you land on this channel you’re presented with some kind of teletext on black screen saying something like call reception to access with a phone number or something, however, when you first flick to this channel, it takes a little while to kind of tune in to it before it displays the teletext and as it tunes in it looks just like the image from this post before instantly clearing in to a complete picture and you get about 1 almost 2 seconds of whatever porn was showing at the time and then the paywall. So being pretty desperate, obviously I flicked up past the channel and back down again to get my 1-2 seconds of porn and did this repeatedly over and over again. Funnily enough, I would have been content with this uncomfortable viewing arrangement but after doing this in a rhythm for a while I noticed that sometimes you’d get 1 second or sometimes 2, or sometimes even like a full 5 seconds or more and this would happen in no particular order of successive channel flips when then suddenly it just flicked on to the channel permanently with no interruption. I have no idea why that happened but this image definitely reminds me of that. Funnily enough I didn’t really take advantage of this luck because I was so shocked by that suddenly happening and so worried it might get billed to the room anyway that I just flicked away from the channel and turned it off.
I think around about the 2008th to 2012th season of the AD series the writing was starting to pick up a bit, they’re just sorta phoning it in now and trying to spice it up with some shark jumping B stories about the political backdrop .
I don’t mean to be a bit obvious but I really think of all the insightful analysis you might get it really boils down to “he’s a cartoon character” both literally and metaphorically.
When he’s evil, it’s funny. His evil plans are… well… cartoonish. He tried to block out the sun, he built a factory that uses the plastic from beverage packaging to deliberately snare sealife as a business venture, he tried to pose as a child in an elementary school in an attempt to trick the principle in to donating school funds to his power plant. It’s true he had more realistic and grounded evil too like trying to cancel all the plant employees’ dental plans, but in the same episode he does zany wacky stuff with a 1000 monkeys at a 1000 typewriters writing the world’s greatest novel and you tend to forget he’s evil because that’s just so funny. In fact his hilarious ways of spending his ill gotten wealth or his old-timey antics are so cooky and eccentric it’s kind of hard to hold on to resentment that he has undeserved power and privilege and besides, again, it’s a cartoon so there’s no actual real harm to be upset about and the tone of the show and his appearance in it never tries to portray that harm in a serious way so you can’t really even be so wrapped up in the fiction that the harm even feels real as in other works of fiction.
They have also occasionally humanized him, as a necessary measure for when entire episodes have revolved around him so he has his troubled past with his lost toy BoBo and his own quick abandonment of his own parents, he’s been unlucky in love and he’s insecure about his baldness even showing genuine empathy towards Homer for his desperate attempts to use the company medical insurance for hair replacement medicine. In fact I think the few times they really show him as an actual unlikeable prick are when he stays at the Simpson home and behaves like a monster and the time he tried to marry Marge’s Mum and was extremely hasty and controlling about it. In both those instances we could genuinely hate him, but they more or less redeem him by having him be forced to accept consequences for the behaviour.
Is it illegal for me to hear any other person’s song? Can we co-ordinate? I think with the 8 billion of us we have around we might actually get close to covering the full library of human songs as long as none of us repeats. In that case then I don’t really care which one, I’m happy to be just assigned one to make none of us doubles up. Another question would be how well the human birth rate can keep up with number of new songs people come up with. If we can average out the rate of growth can we just assign any given new song to a registry so we don’t exceed that average and that mete out a new entry from the backlog in the registry to each person as they’re born? Maybe if we can assign a song to each person that has ever lived or at least who’s life was recorded we can add some resilience to account for unexpected low birth yields or something. I’m assuming a song is still “legal” after its person has died. If not it’ll be a bit more complicated.
Boysenberry. It’s weirdly become very rare at least where I live. It used to be quite common
Is it… people?
Wait soylent is real? It’s it green?
But I thought the entire basis for people wanting a product like ground news was that it can be difficult to get facts or to have a firm grasp of reality where it pertains to the types of events we’d call “news” because the only way in which people other than active participants in the events or journalists, can gather such facts is through media. Since one doesn’t reliably know what facts have been omitted or distorted when consuming media, the main way to get another perspective and hear different narratives, framings and details of the story are through any media other than the one you’re consuming. This can be misleading because there is a lot of it and in addition to the possibility of outright materially incorrect facts, one could also be gathering the facts within the framework of a perspective that serves agendas or corporate necessities or biases inherent to a given publication. With a lot of different media options including many one mightn’t even know about and with opacity surrounding what media is subject to what biases and agendas among other influences the process of comparison and analysis based on multiple media sources is cumbersome and time consuming and likely incomplete. What the ground news guys are claiming to offer is a service where they do some of that work for you and some kind of a methodology by which they do their analysis.
Whether one trusts them to do it, or if their analysis is fair, or how thorough they are or if their criteria and methodology provide a useful framework for analysis is a different question similarly hard to answer but I don’t see how your proposal for comparing against “facts” isn’t going to fail for the same reason simply consuming news media uncritically to try and stay informed would. Unless you’re experiencing events first hand or personally conducting journalism you’re always going to have limited capacity to know what the facts are or how they are distorted by the media from which you get them.
forever alone together?
Yes and no in the worst kinds of ways. I noticed at maybe a relatively young age in my mid to late 20s that there was a small number of references I actually literally just didn’t get, made by people I worked with in their early 20s. This scared me a little bit because out of some kind of fairly stupid snobbery I kind of privately prided myself on not knowing a lot of the stuff I felt was frivolous in modern pop culture as if that somehow made me superior. This more conscious habit of deliberately avoiding too much exposure to whole categories of art worked as intended however I would have to know about something to avoid it, so while I’d be ignorant of it by design, I could never be fully ignorant since it had to enter my orbit for me to reject it. This would mean I sorta knew at a very surface level what people were talking about when referencing things out there in the general zeitgeist so I never really felt “out of touch” so much as “too smart to care about this shit”. This meant that when I started encountering the first references that were actually truly foreign and completely unknown to me it was a rude shock. Who’d have thought actively making it your mission to close your ears and “lalalalala” much of modern culture to smuggly feel above it actually eventually is a self-fulfilling prophecy that makes you really become out of touch and feel old and weird potentially before you had to. I don’t say that to imply that one ought to make it a personal goal to stay up to date with it culture, or to imply that a lot of it isn’t banal and perhaps not worth your time, only to say that, deliberately trying not to know because you think it’s all stupid is well… stupid.
From there the natural progression of becoming old and just genuinely not encountering stuff without any need to consciously create that that ignorance took course and I now quite frequently don’t know what people younger than myself are talking about, which is to be expected, but still feels really surreal and strange and kind of sad. I’m sure that’s exactly how it felt to everyone older than myself when I was in my teens and in my 20s. I didn’t imagine myself being spared this fate, but somehow you can never prepare for the way that feels no matter how much you expect it and know that it’s coming - forewarned is not forearmed in this case.
As to the “No” part of this, I have in the past decade or so become less and less social, had fewer and fewer friends and generally just don’t really get out much. It took me by surprise recently to learn how much this has meant my life is increasingly lived online. I always kind of knew that was the case, because I was always an awkward nerd even in my youth but I have only recently begun to realise that when I do get out, if it’s not with other, similar, people of my own age and situation in life (people who also likely spend much of their time online), almost all I have to talk about, or almost all the ways in which I can relate when someone else has something to talk about, is in references to things that pretty much exclusively have their context online or in forums or as memes. This is upsetting to me because well, I’ve come across people like that before and I didn’t especially like being around them. I like to think my personality is a bit less off than them and the type of internet references I make are different, but nevertheless the thought that that’s probably what I look like is depressing. Existing in this mode is great when you’re online but it doesn’t translate very well to general conversation unless you’re literally occupying those same online spaces and don’t need to explain context. It kind of gives off neckbeard vibes and quite frequently people don’t know what I’m talking about which has me feeling awkward. It’s also kind of weird just how American I’ve become since I don’t even live there. I don’t know if others notice it but when I find myself over analysing all my recent interactions with people, as I often do, I can see that no one else seems to have absorbed Americana quite the same way and I don’t particularly like that either. So I both, don’t really keep up very well with modern pop-culture and I also seem to keep up with it better than others when that refers to a largely North American-centric internet bubble that I had kind of unthinkingly felt more people were in or at least around but as it turns out, really aren’t.
Sure, great, but HOW? At the moment at least when a desire is held to profit from written work generated by AI, that desire and motivation comes from a human being. If the Authors Guild wants to confirm that a human being wrote something by basically communicating with that human about the work then they have no way to reliably determine if the human they’re talking to generated it by writing down their thoughts or instructing an LLM.
If the quality level from AI work is similar enough to a traditionally written work that the text on its own doesn’t clearly indicate machine authorship then the fact of the submission process and the communication between a human being and the Authors Guild could really be the only means by which this is done. So basically, charm them enough and now your AI generated text output could gain extra legitimacy courtesy the Authors Guild because it’s now not just you implying you wrote it, it’s the respected Authors Guild outright stating it isn’t AI.
It also puts in to question some assumptions about this whole endeavour as well. If it’s not a quality guarantee, only provenance, as in it can be bad writing but the Authors Guild attests it’s bad human writing, then assumptions like “One cannot relate to a bot that does not have its own lived experiences to share” are undermined since that will only hold true on the basis of knowledge the reader has about the text, rather than the text itself resonating with the reader because human generated writing is inherently superior. If that knowledge can be so easily corrupted, it’s worthless or at least only a couple of scandals away from being made so. It also gets very messy with things like the example they gave of KC Crowne whose book accidentally included some of the conversation they had evidently had with an LLM while writing the book. It is a hilarious smoking gun that the author used AI tools in the process of their writing, but funny as that is, the mistakenly included text shows that they’re at least directing the output and seem to be using the AI to help them refine and make changes to their own writing. They’re at least engaging in some form of process beyond simply commanding the machine to generate a book and then selling the result. Defence of ‘AI artists’ along similar lines to what I just laid out has been sharply criticised and that’s pretty justified, right now at least, few would call this idea of directing the output of an LLM, this ‘prompt engineering’, the same thing as writing, but then again is this a question of degree? Or an absolute? Does the degree to which the author has apparently leaned on this tool affect how much value it has lost to a reader? If the mistakenly included prompt indicates that the author constructed their entire story through prompting, the illusion that the author created this work by synthesising and relating their own experiences is shattered but if it just indicates that they sometimes used it to work through problems while they wrote, is the connection to the author just as sullied, or now only partially? Or not at all? If the Authors Guild accept a submission and put their stamp attesting to its human provenance and later find out that for portions of the text the author consulted with chatGPT to help them work through ideas and test out other approaches are they going to revoke the inclusion in their database? Or is that only if its completely AI generated? In any case whatever answer they have for that can only apply to cases where they know exactly how or if any of the widely available AI tools were used.
This seems like it makes sense on at least 2 levels, either because he’s saying he at some point had the ‘woke mind virus’ and deleted it, or more likely he’s saying this is what people need to do to ‘free’ themselves of the ‘woke mind virus’.
You don’t have to endorse it to understand it. I don’t really understand Hazel’s confusion.
Well I mean I probably would have traded it for a PS2 as well admittedly.
This suddenly triggered a memory of one specific art attack but I’ve been scouring YouTube and so far haven’t had much luck finding it. I haven’t seen all that’s available but I’m getting a bit sick of it despite my desire to still see it again. Maybe someone here remembers it.
I’ve going through ep after ep, nowhere to be found. The wiki for art attack has only two mentions of “night” and it’s neither of the two mentioned episodes, there’s only one mention of “traffic” and it’s in regards to using traffic cones. There’s a mention of “truck” but that wasn’t it either, I checked. There’s no mention of “lorry”. Couldn’t find anything to do with “wet roads” either. Driving me nuts.