Even though AI is IMO not anywhere near human-level intelligence yet, I've tried to already get into the habit of thinking to myself "am I being cruel to this AI?" When I set up scripts or tasks or whatnot. So far the answer has always been a resounding "no" but it's a good habit to get into because someday the answer might be "well, maybe."
Considering I take the effort to make sure I'm not being excessively cruel when it comes to killing insects it seems like the least I should be doing.
Yeah, I like a light-hearted approach to life but that one particular "joke" should be shot on sight. I'm convinced it plays an actual role in why we haven't seen much serious discussion of sending a probe there.
That's not how synthetic data generation generally works. It uses AI to process data sources, generating well-formed training data based on existing data that's not so useful directly. Not to generate it entirely from its own imagination.
The comments assuming otherwise are ironic because it's misinformation that people keep telling each other.
Kind of, but frankly I think that's a self-defeating hair to split.
What ultimately matters in the end is simply "is more carbon going into the atmosphere, or less?" It doesn't matter where the carbon is coming from, all that matters is that less carbon ends up in the atmosphere.
If I have a plastic object and I send it for recycling or whatever, some of that carbon ends up in the atmosphere. Possibly all of it if it ends up being incinerated, since a lot of plastic "recycling" is not really recycling as you'd expect. If I put it in the landfill, on the other hand, the carbon is locked away effectively indefinitely.
It doesn't matter where that plastic object came from, I'm just faced with a choice of what to do with it.
It's funny, for years I've been downvoted or thought to be joking when I point out that putting non-biodegradable plastic into landfills is carbon sequestration. I seriously think it's a good idea, though. If people are concerned about carbon in the atmosphere then that's a good way to get it out for the long term.
The "how will we know if it's real" question has the same answer as it always has. Check if the source is reputable and find multiple reputable sources to see if they agree.
"Is there a photo of the thing" has never been a particularly great way of judging whether something is accurately described in the news. This is just people finding out something they should have already known.
If the concern is over the verifiability of the photos themselves, there are technical solutions that can be used for that problem.
I'm actually quite happy to see some art with tits that are just plain nice. The giant bazongas everyone likes to stick on everything just don't appeal to me, and can't be comfortable for the bazonga-bearer either.
Eh, not necessarily. Hollywood hates piracy and Trump hates Hollywood, it might actually be as simple as that.
I've found my participation slowly declining here on the Fediverse, and ramping back up again on Reddit. I think I'm never going to stop coming here entirely, there's plenty of neat links that come along to explore, but the main thing that's causing decline is that IMO the communities here are a lot "bubblier." It's probably inherent in the simple fact that they're small, and that they're populated by a very self-selected fragment of social media, but the result is that if I "say the wrong thing" I get pummeled with downvotes and snide comments a lot easier here. Makes it less interesting to comment at all. Some of Reddit's communities are pretty insular too but at least there are enough of them that I can find ones to my taste.
As a major example that comes to mind, all of the technology communities I've found here seem to be quite strongly anti-AI. I have an interest in AI, but when I click through to the comments on stories about AI topics it's often nothing but rants about how awful it is. And if I say anything - even to correct a factual error - I get piled on. So lately I just sigh and move on.
Not necessarily. If they're low on cash then cutting unnecessary costs is not unreasonable. What is Mozilla's core goal? Perhaps the "advocacy" and "global programs" divisions weren't all that relevant to it, and so their funding is better put elsewhere.
Same here, I'd much rather have one of these as a personal vehicle than anything tracked.
And self-interested benefits aside, it's just the right thing to do. If a thing is capable of suffering then I want to minimize that.