Include an unprotected exhaust vent in the trench.

They need to evolve how they keep making everything they touch worse and give the finger to Palestine at the same time.

I am an unabashed fan of Ghostbusters 2016. The scene with Holtzmann and the pistols gives me tingles. Kevin is just a gem.

Won’t someone think of the shares???

The guy has always been a piece of shit so I’m glad more people are learning this.

This thread is weirdly heartwarming. The internet brings its power to bear to help a poor stranger stim like they’ve never stimmed before.

He achieved REM stage at least once…

Too many billionaires are salivating over the latter.

Exactly. People keep shoehorning Large Language Models into non-linguistic domains, and that’s dangerous. Human language, with respect to the training sets used, is inherently subjective and imperfect. Healthcare is very fault-intolerant.

It doesn’t replace any individual directly. It improves one person’s capability to the extent that there may be fewer needed to do a job. And that’s not a bad thing in my opinion, especially because it can improve the quality of that person’s work at the same time.

Edit to elaborate: I am opposed to replacing humans with AI in general. AI is a tool. But if that tool can empower someone to do more and better work, then I’m not opposed. Using stolen intellectual property to replace creatives with an inherently non-creative slop machine is greedy and evil. Using machine learning trained on medical data sets to let a radiologist more comprehensively and deeply review a frankly overwhelming amount of data to better save lives? I’m cool with that. But I also think that, in line with my stance that AI is a tool, there will likely be a well-trained human operating these tools for a long time before radiologists cease to exist.

For what it’s worth, “AI” in this context is probably not the content-stealing Generative AI that everyone is trying to cram everywhere it doesn’t belong. This is a much more legitimate application of a similar technology.

I’m not mad about the idea of AI in radiology because it’s a really good fit. A human radiologist can’t compare a hundred similar slices and cross-correlate possible anomalies, whereas AI can. This improves detection and outcomes and is exactly where medical technology is supposed to help.

That said, I don’t think we’ll replace radiologists across the board for a long time. This will be a very useful tool and will probably reduce the number of radiologists required and modify their roles significantly, but it’ll be more like how a single worker with editing software can do work that would have required a small team in the pre-digital days of film.

Seems reasonable to say that “concept artist” its a job at threat here. Thanks for your thoughts!

Also, hadn’t heard that about the Zelda movie. Wasn’t going to see it anyway because Nintendo sucks these days, but it’s still news.

Sure, garbage in, garbage out and all that. The autonomously generated stuff tends toward generic as an inherent byproduct of being a closed loop system. But that doesn’t mean a real artist couldn’t look at some boring ass slop and be inspired to explore new directions.

I think one of the common themes I’m circling these days is that “human in the loop” is a common concept around ensuring outputs from AI systems are acceptable, but a better way to look at it is that generative AI should never have a direct connection to final output. As inspiration or iteration, I think there’s potential value, but ultimately, whether it’s code, art, or content, a human should create what goes out. Using AI for intermediate acceleration is a much healthier approach than the “look how many people we can replace!” angle that’s so popular in tech.

This doesn’t solve any of the many other issues with generative AI these days, but it at least feels like a more sensible approach to the creative concerns.

I have a serious question. To preface: I am no fan of generative AI. I hate the environmental impact, the impact on our workforce, and the risk of further widening the wealth disparity across the world.

That said, do you believe that using generative AI in this case (for prototyping and rapid iteration/visualization of intermediate/non-final design concepts) is worse than, say, artists looking at the freely available online portfolios of other artists for inspiration, provided that they generate the final designs entirely by themselves?

I’m not saying it is or isn’t at this point, but I’m curious if you have a perspective on whether/how this isn’t at least one of the less-bad ways to use AI. It seems kind of like “you can’t stop someone from asking AI for help” levels of usage, not “we fired people to replace their output with slop”.

Meanwhile we’re just waiting until Hegseth accidentally turns a Bethesda-area Target into a smoking crater because he was drunk-Grokking and fucks up ordering an airstrike to cheer himself up after the mainstream librul media hurt his fee-fees.

It really is a special era when people said that fish and gelatins could belong together.

Make sure there are marshmallows and 7-Up in it.

Maybe you can’t fight a rocket, but an autonomous taxi on the other hand…

15:33 - Itchy. Tasty.

Generally how I operate too. The key is enriching for me. If you’re a piece of shit who’s alive and collecting royalties, I’ll do everything I can not to add to them. If I already own your creation, I’ll use that instead of streaming/renting/buying. If I don’t, I’ll just find something else.

It’s like when the owners of Chick-Fil-A turned out to be horrendous bigots. Everybody was saying “but there are so many people working there that aren’t homophobic - are you going to hurt them too?” Afraid so. I’m not going to contribute to the success of a hateful person for a fucking chicken sandwich. Working for them is also contributing to the success of those bigots and their efforts in trying to destroy people I love, so I’m afraid I can’t be very sympathetic. The job market for hate needs to have downward pressure on it.