oneoff786

Genetics?? Absolutely not.

You need to have a feeling for the cultural context around some things to appreciate them.

It also doesn’t take much work to refresh a song’s styling and execution to sound relatable.

If LeBron James dies and someone somehow has the rights to his likeness, they are not an agent however. They are the rights holder. Perhaps they coincidentally also have an agent doing the work, but it is not LeBron James’s agent. :)

Better to demand deeply personal information on all women rather than let a trans woman secretly compete in high school athletics with an unfair advantage right?

God forbid we let someone play a sport with their peers.

Well if you’re Tom Cruise’s agent you get a commission for the work Tom Cruise does. Not his likeness.

Because there’s someone dumber willing to give you money for it

Then go redeem one. We’re all watching.

You are cherry picking a dumb example. We don’t shit on paint when someone makes poop. What you should be cherry picking is examples of art that people would consider profound upon seeing it. Otherwise you’ll simply look like a dumbass when you’re implying that only trash will be generated and then beautiful stuff is generated. The fact that current ai has dumb interpretations on things is hardly a fundamental quality of generative algos.

My statement is simply that the algo’s are a tool. And tools can be used to make good art.

Your opinion is not the only one that I’m addressing. I clearly understand your point which I address by:

> What you’re really complaining about is creation of art from apparent randomness. Not the AI model alone but monkeys on a typewriter getting something compelling from the AI.

You accuse others of anthrpormorphisizing the tool but you do the same. Art created with Chat GPT is not created by Chat GPT. It is created by a human using a chat GPT. There is no intrinsic limitation on the profundity of art created using chat GPT or other algorithms.

It’s like complaining that paint is stupid. A comment that is largely irrelevant to the artistic merit of paintings.

I agree. Alyx was a lot of smoke and mirrors. I think it is the best VR has. But VR sucks. Alyx highlights 3 issues in combat.

1) you can’t move irl enough to dodge bullets. You can duck behind cover. But moving is hard. I also suspected some enemy types would target you based on where you had last teleported not where your body should be.

2) enemies hitting you in melee are awkwardly far and you have no ability to hit them in melee. For good reason. Melee in VR is kind of dumb. See boneworks.

3) teleporting and stick movement is very overpowered in addition to nausea. When you can move by stick, it is far superior to moving irl, which undermines the point. This is a fundamental problem in VR. You can’t do both irl movement and stick movement at the same time. And enemies have to move at irl speed to be “fair” to people who want to “do the motions”.

The reloading and general sense of ducking is good. Very good. But it only goes so far.

I disagree. I don’t care much about what is profound. I think most of it is not. Things that we call profound are really just astute observations of patterns in the real world, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

However profundity doesn’t need to factor into the debate of whether ai should or should not be allowed to train on things. If we allow humans to copy things, then Humans ought to be allowed to copy things with dumb non sentient ai too.

Ai in the current state is just a tool, much like a paint brush.

Cue the inevitable appeal to copying exact works, rebuttals to training on human painted mimicries and then bam, you’ve got the authors special style learned by the model with extra steps.

It’s annoying and pointless.

Art that is merely visually intriguing is not very interesting. If an artist makes something without a particular idea to communicate, it’s just aesthetics. It is not profound. If an artist has an idea and creates a work that represents it, then maybe it is profound. But it doesn’t matter if it was made with paint or a computer. The idea is the profound thing. AI is not sentient. It’s still the user.

The appeals to pareidolia are wrong. Synthesis of ideas from past data is natural. But the AI does not choose things. What you’re really complaining about is creation of art from apparent randomness. Not the AI model alone but monkeys on a typewriter getting something compelling from the AI.

What do we do when the tools are so powerful that a monkey creates a profound work that the monkey doesn’t understand? Shrug.

I’m gonna go ahead and guess that they would rather do that than be in a coal mine, with safety gear.

> To insist that we're just a bunch of walking, breathing prompt-reproducers essentially seems like it's rooted in a belief that we have no interior lives, and that meaning in writing or art is utterly illusory

Let’s assume humans are not just evolved pattern machines for a second. A human can still do a completely non profound work of art following a prompt to draw X in the style of Y. And that’s ok. So why can a machine not do the same?

Surely not everything a human does is intrinsically profound.

I believe there is only one goofy at a time, ever.

Deferring blindly to any government is a dumb strategy.

You can’t really look at numbers like that to paint a full picture.

Net income in particular is sensitive to one time events.

In this case, imo, it looks like the most important story is that revenue per user is falling hard. 17% more users. -15% revenue per user. Revenues are falling in North America and they have to try and make up for it by targeting the rest of the world.

That datapoint is a forecast derived from many data points. You may not agree with the forecast, but the count is not persuasive.

I believe the fees get rationed out according to your listening. They don’t pay anything more if you listen to a song 10x vs 1000x. I’m not sure off the top of my head if that’s user level proportions or aggregate.

Why not? You don’t think they could eek out an additional 70 cents per month per customer if they wanted to focus on that right now?

The bacteria is one thing, but acidic foods are another. Brushing after citrus will destroy your teeth over time. Not sure about coffee.

While I agree the garden walls should fall for integration, it seems very reasonable that teams would be a part of office, much like outlook. Chat and Video calls are increasingly a feature rather than a product. It would be crazy if they were not allowed to include such a thing, no?

Hmm but I feel like teams does make sense to be part of something like enterprise windows, no?

What do you think needs to be urgent broken off there?

I think it would still pale in comparison to the splitting of AWS from Amazon though

I’m not so sure. It can be easier to pay for contractors for various budgeting reasons.

I recall reading studies that suggested it was not the quantity of time spent with parents but the quality that seemed to correlate with long term results. Provided the actual needs of the child were taken care of by someone.

With the availability of things like pyspark the grey zone between pandas scale and pyspark scale is small and uncommon though. Especially for the awkward tabular data manipulation tasks where you actually need to be mapping custom functions and what not.

Pandas built ins can cover everything with good performance except dataframe.apply imo

That and using dicts as maps.

They are indeed small. But most real world problems operate on small data.

And if it’s bigger you probably ought to be using a different toolset than Python altogether.

In my experience it is exceedingly rare to find a situation where you have > 1M rows of data and need to do tabular data manipulation, and it’s not coming from a managed database sort of setup where the manipulation could be better done in the database.

Data science consulting for business things. Most datasets < 1M rows

I mean not writing your own loops. A built in function is indeed better. But usually not what you need. And also, readability > speed when the execution time is trivial, which is it probably should be for pandas scale data.

Series.map is vectorized.

Pretty much everything you need in pandas is as performant as you ought to need for doing tabular data manipulation in Python. Except dataframe.apply