Maybe the AIs should mix their own pigments as well, instead of taking all the other artists' work and grinding that up.
mindlesscrollyparrot
joined 2 years ago
Last year, Tesla announced that they had improved with autonomous emergency braking system, to go 'beyond standard AEB functionality'. And yet, here we have a story where a Tesla drove straight into a stationary vehicle and, according to the cop, didn't slow down.
Yes, the driver should have been paying attention, but why did the AEB do nothing?
I basically agree with all of that, but it was totally possible to upgrade the auth system and keep it separate from Microsoft. Obviously Microsoft wouldn't do that, but that's kind of the point, isn't it?
It concerns me that the article blames this on El Nino and continued burning of fossil fuels.
I'm sure those are contributing, but what about the wildfires that we saw last year? They are a feedback effect (higher temperatures makes fires more likely; fires release CO2; CO2 increases temperatures). If feedback effects have started, then everybody needs to panic.
Significant money and effort? Greenpeace does not have 'significant money' in comparison with the petrochemical companies. And effort? Greenpeace was one of the first groups to raise awareness of the danger of global warming. They have been actively fighting it since long before you heard of the term. They have been promoting sustainable energy all that time. If we had followed their lead, we would most likely be off nuclear and off fossil fuels. The fact that we (the rest of us) have failed to follow their lead is not their fault.
This is just obviously untrue. Not least because we did build lots of nuclear power plants. One significant reason why we didn't build more was their high price compared to ... coal and gas plants. But sure, it's Greenpeace's fault and not Exxon Mobil.
I wish Altman would read Accelerando.
But we do know how they operate. I saw a post a while back where somebody asked the LLM how it was calculating (incorrectly) the date of Easter. It answered with the formula for the date of Easter. The only problem is that that was a lie. It doesn't calculate. You or I can perform long multiplication if asked to, but the LLM can't (ironically, since the hardware it runs on is far better at multiplication than we are).
This seems to be a really long way of saying that you agree that current LLMs hallucinate all the time.
I'm not sure that the ability to change in response to new data would necessarily be enough. They cannot form hypotheses and, even if they could, they have no way to test them.
The period when dejanews just started to index newsgroups was a golden age for finding answers on the internet, IMO, and there's a strong similarity to the fediverse. All we need is for it to be searchable... OK, I see your point now.
Because it only contains "credible policies in place for less than 20% of the emissions cuts needed". The other 80% is all wishful thinking.
Inspiration is absolutely a thing. When Constable and Cezanne sat at their easels, a large part of their inspiration was Nature. When Picasso invented Cubism, he was reacting to tradition, not following it. There are also artists like Alfred Wallis, who are very unconnected to tradition.
I think your final sentence is actually trying to say that we have advances in tools, not inspiration, since the Lascaux caves are easily on a par with the Sistine Chapel if you allow for the technology? And that AI is simply a new tool? That may be, but does the artist using this new tool control which images it was trained on? Do they even know? Can they even know?