JayDee
"Like real pashmina, shahtoosh is also from the Himalayas—it was a choice wrap for the 16th-century Mughal emperor Akbar the Great—but instead of goat hair, shahtoosh is made from the underfur of the chiru, a species of antelope indigenous to the Tibetan Plateau in China. The problem is that these majestic animals must be killed before their wool can be removed. As a result, since 1975, the species has been classified as endangered."
You should have gone for the head.
So her entire rant starts by talking about AI safety, and then reduces the conversation to talking about AGI being created by text generation AI systems. I'm a bit confused, is she specifically just dunking on shitty reporters who only cover the "AGI from text generators" drivel?
EDIT: Alright, I finally got my half-asleep brain around it. I'm gonna leave my AI safety rant below anyways.
Like, AI safety is an actual problem right now.
- We're coming up on a period where fake AI-generated footage is actually believable at a glance.
- AI voice generation software is REALLY FUCKING good right now.
- We have drone systems which coordinate swarms well enough to perform intricate light shows.
- AI-generated art is also insanely good at the moment.
- newer facial recognition systems are scary good at identifying people now
These are each a problem because:
- forging video for whatever fucked up purpose is easier than ever. Revenge porn, twisting a political narrative, etc. All super easy now.
- again, forging audio. This combined with the video, the possibilities are endless
- The idea of digital-art-for-profit should pretty much be viewed in the same fashion as professional calligraphist, within the next couple of decades. Vast majority of digital art jobs are probably going to be dead. Animation is probably next on the chopping block.
- I don't think I need to go too in-depth on why AI-controlled drones looks really good for military prospects.
- Mass surveillance that's borderline impossible to escape is on the horizon, thanks to AI.
Like, I don't see how this person can shit on AI safety while completely ignoring the actual vast majority of AI safety issues.
What in the Fuck is that please tell me that's a beetle and that's not just it's head.
NGL I don't like sushi but that fried sushi looking pretty appetizing.
Ohio: trans Zion?
1000x /s
So it's not coming from US tax payers, this is saying? It comes from Japanese taxpayers, German taxpayers, South Korean tax payers, etc. on top of US tax payers.
That really does not change the situation. It still is a massive amount of money out of US pockets, and the rest is out of US allies' citizen pockets. It also doesn't change the failing to pass audits. It also doesn't change their massive collection of known BS actions done in the past.
I read through the thread.
People were being reasonable. At the worst, they were confused by you wanting the mouse between the keyboard sides.
You were being overreactive.
Looks to me like OP came in asking for a type of keyboard that isn't out there currently and was grating to the responses when different on-the-market solutions were presented, stating that they're too different from a standard keyboard.
I wasn't apart of it but I'm not surprised he got downvoted. They went onto an ergo keyboard community and then skoffed at any keyboard that had ergonomic design in mind.
Minority report eye black market here we come.
The study assertion is funny, but I don't really think it's worth much in terms of proving anything.
The number of participants being 6,000 seems promising, but I question the value of the questions they asked.
Recall 10 words read to you immediately and then again after the interview.
Name as many animals as possible in an elotted amount of time.
Subtract 7 from 100. Then again. Up to five times.
Solve the missing numbers in two number sequences.
Answer 5 math word problems.
Depending on what mental state you're in, whether you're recently off work, high, coming back from a run, etc. I think you're likely to have dramatically different test scores from these.
Furthermore, these seem much more relevant to the education quality of an individual - and they call it "cognitive performance" (how good you think at the time) in the study which is kind of correct, but the article is passing it off as the participants' intelligence (how good you think period), which is fucked up IMO.
I overall don't like it and don't find it that persuasive.