And the meat industry is based on subsidies and infrastructure that goes back what, decades?
If there's anything that produces carbon that's "inevitable" and "never going away", the meat industry is a far better candidate than AI, but I only ever hear arguments about the latter from the AI boosters.
(Hopefully it goes without saying but this is not a defense of keeping meat around, which is not something that can be said when you hear an AI inevitabilist say their cliche)
Failure is an acceptable option when the golden parachutes are primed.
When confronted with data that people preferred AI writing to human writing, your reaction is to make something up about the participants?
There is nothing wrong with their guess. The paper you linked says nearly the same thing:
One possibility (explored in more detail in Porter and Machery) is that AI-generated work is seen as easier to interpret—people generally like these works better because they feel as though they are easier to read or understand.
Broader than the name suggests, HB 2299 covers cellphones, tablets, smartwatches, wireless earbuds, PDAs, and text-messaging devices — basically everything in a teenager’s backpack except a pencil.
Not like students would have textbooks or calculators or notebooks.
Yes. I was quoting some insight from the piece you linked, so it seemed appropriate to reply to your comment here.
There's alternative commands available , but it's odd that Microsoft would remove a well-known one just in general. It's one thing for people to change their habits, but what about legacy scripts?
After all, this is the same Microsoft that prevents you from naming a file "con" because it could break old scripts
“Because we’re human, we tend to personify AI and imagine it as some kind of glowing robot with a benign and neutral face, when it’s really just predictive code based on a massive stolen database of actual writing, physically based in vast, expensive and destructive datacentres with catastrophic repercussions for the surrounding communities,” he said.
Kennard also stressed that AI was not a “tool” similar to spellcheck or a thesaurus...
A very valuable comment compared to the author of OP's article who simply seems entitled to this cloud service?
And now Anthropic is saying they’re going to make it worse, on purpose, for purposes that do not benefit me in any way? Even if only slightly worse?
Get fucked.
Facebook really wants a legal monopoly on the concept of pervert glasses, don't they?
The logic around spending this much money to advertise something that also cost you money is odd, but at least the interview with the creator is... similarly pretty unusual.
I definitely wouldn’t call myself anti-AI – I’m not a technical person, so I wouldn’t have been able to create something like this three or four years ago, before AI’s help. I think that’s really cool, as are a lot of the other things AI is empowering people to do.
Huh.
I just want people to keep thinking critically about our own relationship to these tools, and about the tenor of the cultural conversation around AI (hence the billboard)...
...especially with all the speculation of [an AI] bubble.
Jokes aside, though, I think this whole stunt is perfectly harmless, and it could be an indicator that maybe lonely people should have more opportunities to talk to lonely people. Especially outside of the context of whatever attention-draining social media apps Big Tech has to offer.
I just visited digg.com and got redirected to digg.com/tech. The article titles are
And the content appears to be AI-generated summaries of Twitter conversations. Phenomenal.
An older version of the website just redirected to digg.com/ai ("AI news, before it trends", and the archived copy seems to have an ironically oversized Twitter logo).
Poor Digg. If they'd only come around a year or two earlier, they could've made bank selling NFTs.
I was going to say, we barely have open-source cellphone OSes right now, and the most functional ones exist only because a surveillance company gave away their early code in a successful bid for market dominance. Something similar would probably play out for pervert glasses.
I didn't expect this big of an article, which is valuable, but the part that caught my attention was something I was hoping to find somewhere in it:
"Government adopting industry framing" is a #1 method & tying two others, including "Disregarding existing laws". Old fashioned lobbying happens 50% less than any of the top three. And less than misinterpreting laws, less than "other elusion".