You also punt in rugby.
You also punt in rugby.
If you make a painting now, it wouldn’t be based on those thousands and thousands of paintings since, although you have seen them, you apparently do not remember them. But, if you did, and you made a painting based on one, and did not acknowledge it, you would indeed be a bad artist.
The bad part about using the art of the past is not copying. The problem is plagiarism.
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?
Maybe the AIs should mix their own pigments as well, instead of taking all the other artists’ work and grinding that up.
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?
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.
It wouldn’t be so bad if they planned to start following them as well.
Zurück zum nächsten Freitag
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.
Yes, but he did have his gun out and the spokesperson effectively said “don’t worry, he didn’t mean to fire it - he was only planning to point it at people”.
You asked “you can … but why would you?”. You answered yourself.
Because he wasn’t in a situation where he was going to need to shoot anyone but he decided to proceed as if he was. And accidents happen, as he demonstrated.
You can say this is SOP, but that’s worse, isn’t it?
Thank you. I hadn’t checked what they’re issued with.
So then I’m wondering why he didn’t demount the flashlight. I guess he was worried that he might accidentally fire the gun into his foot while doing so. He’s obviously a little bit prone to that kind of thing. Safer to leave it on the rail, I guess.
So he was trying to work the flashlight when he accidentally pulled the trigger. Is there no safety on these guns, or did he disengage that when he was trying to use his radio?
That’s true, but they did already try it and it didn’t catch on. There’s a section about it on the Wikipedia page (“Copy protection”).
That section also mentions that Philips stated that these discs couldn’t have the CD logo on them. Since Philips was behind SACD, together with Sony, you’d think they wouldn’t have imposed that restriction on themselves if they had the choice.
You can definitely put DRM-protected content onto the physical CD media - that is exactly what SACD is. But then it isn’t an audio CD, even if it will play on a regular CD player. Search for “nonstandard or corrupted” on the Wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_Digital_Audio .
It’s my understanding that only conforming CDs can carry the CD logo. It’s usually on the case, not the disc itself, and it isn’t always there, particularly when the case isn’t a jewel case. All the same, I think that most things that look like CDs are conformant.
Thanks for the tip - they do seem to have a lot. I had assumed that the labels had made it unprofitable for that type of service to exist. I guess maybe it’s simply that there is more money to be made from streaming.
They’ll probably publish the abridged version, sadly. The full version reads, as we well know:
Thou shall not commit adultery but, if thou doest, thou shalt pay off the other woman so that it harmeth not thy chances in the presidential election. Nor shall it turn thy supporters against thee when they heareth of it.