Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit and then some time on kbin.social.
The Darvaza gas crater is a hole in Turkmenistan that’s leaking natural gas and is on fire. I’m quite sure they don’t have a “poet laureate”, it’s literally just a hole in the ground.
But even if it was some metropolis, yeah, he’d be just some guy.
You can get whatever result you want if you’re able to define what “better” means.
Why publish books of it, then?
The whole point of poetry is that it’s an original expression of another human.
Who are you to decide what the “point” of poetry is?
Maybe the point of poetry is to make the reader feel something. If AI-generated poetry can do that just as well as human-generated poetry, then it’s just as good when judged in that manner.
I do get the sense sometimes that the more extreme anti-AI screeds I’ve come across have the feel of narcissistic rage about them. The recognition of AI art threatens things that we’ve told ourselves are “special” about us.
Indeed, there are whole categories of art such as “found art” or the abstract stuff that involves throwing splats of paint at things that can’t really convey the intent of the artist because the artist wasn’t involved in specifying how it looked in the first place. The artist is more like the “first viewer” of those particular art pieces, they do or find a thing and then decide “that means something” after the fact.
It’s entirely possible to do that with something AI generated. Algorithmic art goes way back. Lots of people find graphs of the Mandelbrot Set to be beautiful.
Now watch everyone jumping to the support of AI.
Yeah, I like a light-hearted approach to life but that one particular “joke” should be shot on sight. I’m convinced it plays an actual role in why we haven’t seen much serious discussion of sending a probe there.
That’s not how synthetic data generation generally works. It uses AI to process data sources, generating well-formed training data based on existing data that’s not so useful directly. Not to generate it entirely from its own imagination.
The comments assuming otherwise are ironic because it’s misinformation that people keep telling each other.
Kind of, but frankly I think that’s a self-defeating hair to split.
What ultimately matters in the end is simply “is more carbon going into the atmosphere, or less?” It doesn’t matter where the carbon is coming from, all that matters is that less carbon ends up in the atmosphere.
If I have a plastic object and I send it for recycling or whatever, some of that carbon ends up in the atmosphere. Possibly all of it if it ends up being incinerated, since a lot of plastic “recycling” is not really recycling as you’d expect. If I put it in the landfill, on the other hand, the carbon is locked away effectively indefinitely.
It doesn’t matter where that plastic object came from, I’m just faced with a choice of what to do with it.
It’s funny, for years I’ve been downvoted or thought to be joking when I point out that putting non-biodegradable plastic into landfills is carbon sequestration. I seriously think it’s a good idea, though. If people are concerned about carbon in the atmosphere then that’s a good way to get it out for the long term.
The “how will we know if it’s real” question has the same answer as it always has. Check if the source is reputable and find multiple reputable sources to see if they agree.
“Is there a photo of the thing” has never been a particularly great way of judging whether something is accurately described in the news. This is just people finding out something they should have already known.
If the concern is over the verifiability of the photos themselves, there are technical solutions that can be used for that problem.
Yes, but recent advances have really rubbed it in our faces in ways that are a lot harder to deny. Humans haven’t become fundamentally more or less predictable over time but recent advances have shown how predictable we are.
As recent advances in AI have shown, humans are really quite predictable when you throw enough data and compute at the problem. At some point the algorithm will be sophisticated enough that it’ll be able to get to know you better than you know yourself, and will be able to provide you with things you had no idea were what you really wanted.
Interesting times.
Eh, not necessarily. Hollywood hates piracy and Trump hates Hollywood, it might actually be as simple as that.
Europe has freight trains too.
I don’t see why this is a point worth quibbling about. The “gag” is that rails are designed for self-driving vehicles, but most trains are not self-driving. It’s only relatively recently that any of them are.
Most trains aren’t public transit, either. They’re freight haulers.
That’s not most trains. Those are highly specialized and constrained applications. There are already self-driving taxis in certain defined city areas, so they’re still ahead by that standard.
Trains don’t self-drive, though.
Edit: Okay, for the pedants: most trains don’t self-drive.
Pluto’s atmosphere has been studied since the 1980s, using spectroscopy and stellar occultation (watching starlight flicker as Pluto passed in front of it). It wasn’t a surprise when New Horizons observed it.