Good user name too
FarceOfWill
joined 2 years ago
Junior Devs could never code, yes including us
I'm afraid every post you make sounds like you asked an ai to write a roasting based on the article
Oh dear no I'm repying to agree. It is all good.
It's a lazy Sunday and while I have a dozen better things to do trying to make clear posts about ai in a place where people will agree intelligently is a nice waste of time.
The soul thing is very poor ground to argue on yes which is why I immediately spent the time to make a different one :)
At very best it's an intuitive understanding of "procedural oatmeal" where the brain spots patterns in the output so quickly it becomes tired of the art and loses interest.
But I think that's being generous and I think of lot of the time it's a purely to stake a position based on identity and a challenge to that identity.
The wider issue is you have to generate that energy, and you have to be able to capture more carbon than that generation released.
As I understand it doesn't at all. This is why it's seen as analagous to a perpetual motion machine, it's an endless chain of power plants capturing each others carbon to no end.
You could use solar of course, but then why generate anything with fossil fuels just to capture the carbon with solar? Just use solar.
It's not any of those reasons, it's because it can only exist by being trained on human authored art and in many cases you can extract a decentish copy of the original if you can specify enough tags that piece was labelled with.
The ai model is a lossy database of art and using them to launder copyright violations should be illegal, is immorally stealing from the creator, and chills future artists by taking away the revenue they need while learning. This leads to ai model art having not enough future work to train on and the stagnation of the human experience as making beautiful things is not profitable enough, or doesn't give the profit to those with power.
In a brief statement, the UK government said it had not been able to add its name to it because of concerns about national security and "global governance."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8edn0n58gwo
No idea if thats a real reason or not.
You're right, I'll edit a corrrection
Not to disrespect the amazing achievements of the Finn's in that war, but they lost, and lost half their country. (Edit: 10%, not half. Sorry Finland.)
Incredible job not to lose the whole thing ofc.
A spokesman??
What the hell is she doing that's so important someone else has to give her views to the press?
The entire job of opposition leader is to be seen and heard cos you're not doing jack that matters. I suppose I should be happy the Tory party is still so utterly useless but Christ a bit of competence in UK politics would help us all
It wasn't quite so much what she did as the way it was done.
The spending plan looked bad and lack of confidence in it caused a technical issue where pension funds had to make it worse to protect themselves from the consequences, which made it even worse and they had to protect themselves from bigger consequences. But this is boring and not why she had to go imho.
The real problem and cause of the whole lack of confidence was that she got rid of senior people and refused to talk to independent government orgs who are there to check the plan isn't shit.
She removed all the arse covering checks the British government has for budgets thinking she knew better, and as is clear with every mad interview she knows nothing.