I dunno man … assume a model trained on the complete corpus of arts leading up to the Renaissance. What kind of randomness lands you at Hieronymus Bosch? Would AI be able to come up with Gonzo Journalism or modal music?
A brief glance at the history of human ingenuity in the arts really puts generative AI in perspective.
I think AI in this case is doing exactly what it’s best at: Automating unbelievably boring chores on the basis of past “experiences”. In this case the boring chore was “Draw me [insert character name] just how I know him/her”.
Too many people mistakenly assume generative AI is originative or imaginative. It’s not. It certainly can seem that way because it can transform human ideas and words into a picture that has ideally never before existed and that notion is very powerful. But we have to accept that, until now, human creativity is unique to us, the humans. As far as I can tell, the authors were not trying to prove generative AI is unimaginative, they were showing just how blatant copyright infringement in the context of generative AI is happening. No more, no less.
Although this surely does not completely explain the situation, I also have a feeling these sorts of hires surely account for a substantial number of layoffs.
Well well well, if it isn’t the consequences of my own actions!
It’s not like I’m a scholar on the subject or anything, but to my mind the key thing you said is “changing the system”. That’s the prerequisite for achieving a more just society. You can hate on the owner class all you want, simply getting rid of them will not necessarily overthrow societal power relations. New billionaires will rise, capitalism will not die along with the last rich white dude.
I would even go so far as to say that hating on the owning class kind of deflects from analyzing the contradictions and ideologies produced by capitalist societies themselves. This especially shows in certain sorts of reactionary political movements, who have no problem with capitalism as long as it feeds their nationalist ambitions instead of some globalist billionaire jet-set often described as Jewish.
My comment wasn’t really aimed at humanizing him, I only wanted to poke fun at him although I can see where you’re coming from.
I’m more on the side of Marx’s character mask argument on people like Bill. That’s why I can make shitpost comments like mine even without liking him all too much.
I love that this headline let’s ole Bill sound like a zoned out stoner college freshman.
Gird your loins, people running Friendica instances!
Wow I gotta stop hanging out exclusively in Rust communities. When I read the headline I was expecting much more drama.
This point is actually acknowledged in the study findings under “Strengths and Limitations”:
A limitation is that the information we collected did not allow us to separate educational screen time from other types of screen time. Doing so may have helped us in examining the association between screen time and child development while considering both positive and negative aspects of screen time.
The original data used in the study did not allow this differentiation but these findings can be used as a starting point for further research.
Ah ok, I thought you were insinuating kids were being excessively exposed to screens for the sake of research, which wasn’t happening here. But yeah, I agree feeding your toddler 4+ hours of digital media a day is very depressing.
I do not understand the amount of uninformed objections to the presented results in a number of comments here … you can’t just discount the results of a peer-reviewed study with some generic knee-jerk interjection off the top of your head. Read the original article here. It details which covariates were considered and how they were taken into account. Income bracket, educational background, gender, … all this shit is not new to researchers.
Don’t get me wrong: JAMA Pediatrics being a reputable journal shouldn’t lull you into complacency, but JFC, just because you don’t agree with the findings of a study doesn’t mean you have to dismiss it completely on first glance.
What are you talking about? This data was collected in a field study, not in a lab.
This is actually an incredibly poor take. Why do you think self-reported data has no scientific value?
Regarding your last sentence: Are you suggesting insincere motives behind this study?
There is an argument to be made about how studies like this underpin technology averse boomers trying to vilify modern social life. OTOH, studies like this, correctly implemented, are utterly important. It wouldn’t be the first time science has proven something very popular (e.g. smoking) is actually also very harmful.
This was actually much more enjoyable than I expected. TL;DR: A student who kind of likes Rust has to present a PowerPoint (which was prepared for this PP-Karaoke specifically) explaining very stupidly why Rust is bad.
The article is a bit too nostalgic for my tastes, and hyping 4chan or Web 1.0 surrogates is not going to put the Internet back into users’ hands.
Everybody should rather take a look at what Ari Balkan is doing with the Small Web concept over at his blog. He’s also on Mastodon and generally seems like a great guy.
Fair point.