Raptorpat

you know what they say, mix: "first is the worst, second is the best, third is the one with the hairy chest" (paging @NewBluntsworth)

https://twitter.com/martyamericausa/status/1614708938011774976

That's probably why they added the daily adventure incense with the birds - probably half their revenue comes from the location data and they're desperate to get people walking after all the covid accomodations people rages about them trying to undo. Speaking of which: false hope bird encounter #2

I have you the like because it's a heart

we are all upvoting you because we all secretly have a crush and it's our only outlet because we all suffer from social anxiety

on a scale of 1-10, how disappointed would you personally be if we decide not to go in a terminal direction?

whatever nabs says is a lie

first post back, I win

Yeah I think anything mirroring the ongoing research event from last season is paywalled. They may be at a point where they're doubling down on whales to maintain their profits.

yeah lightning gotta strike twice, first to trigger the encounter and then again to overcome the catch rate feels a bit like a chore tbh

congrats reg date twin

How rare is kecleon? I saw one at the airport two weeks ago that I whiffed and it ran away, and I haven't seen one since.

I remember working tangentially on deepfake issues a couple years ago and that was super landmark. Whether or not something is legal or regulated doesn't indicate whether its moral or ethical, particularly when it's something so new that the lawmaking process hasn't caught up to it yet (or that the relevant stakeholders haven't negotiated an agreement on a bill for the legislature to pass). I don't really know the status of deepfake laws across the country currently, but whether there are statutes or judicial precedents on the books, it's still all super new and subject to change. Same thing here.

you'd have to ask sponges. probably that it's just a series of neurons firing off and chemical reactions, which means the real thing is no different than an AI simulating it.

I think pulling it all together, Sponges' central unarticulated thesis is that human minds aren't any more complex, special, unique, valuable, "human", etc. than nascent self-learning AI technology. If you start from that premise, then it follows that it wouldn't intrinsically matter whether you're talking to a real person or an AI on the internet, and it wouldn't intrinsically matter whether art is created by a person or an AI.

From like the battery mineral mining?

I saw a lot of signage from I think Delta hyping up fully electric airplanes by 2026. Not sure that I believe it, but I'm also not a plane scientist so I'm in no position to think about it too hard.

I typically fly once a year at most if I'm lucky

LAX on the return seemed infinitely better. Dropped off the car immediately, shuttle was ready to go, got all squared away fine. Then at the TSA security check they had to feel me up and re-x-ray my laptop. It's not technically LAX's fault but thanks guy

we get extensive use out of Disney+ given we have a two year old

I didn't hit this in my original reply I don't think but like wait what? Is that your genuine position on social engagement? (I'm not critiquing the underlying social anxiety because birds of a feather etc.) Is the foundational principal that people are assholes and engaging with bots is equal if not better? Because if so, that probably 100% explains the values disconnect here.

All the AI makers? Some of them? If they weren't, would that be bad? So one of the points I'd make is that legality and ethics/morality are two different things. One of the tangents I could have gone on re: deepfakes is that this technology advances way faster than the law can account for it. If the legislature hasn't figured out what to do with it and hasn't banned or regulated it, it's legal to deepfake someone without their consent but that doesn't answer whether it's good or bad to do that. I could also raise a parallel to demonstrate how algorithms and AI can take something and put it into an entirely different category. So take political gerrymandering for example. Perfectly legal federally and in most states. Legislators would draw districts by hand based on census data to their advantage. Sometime it would work, sometimes it would backfire, other times it was a wash. But now we have the technology to set parameters for a computer to absolutely min/max every district to virtually guarantee every result. It's still the same, legal gerrymandering, but is it really the same when you get down to it? So like, even if it is legally indistinguishable, is it really the same to have someone train extensively to emulate your style versus teaching an AI to do it instantaneously?

I think the lack of transparency was why we stopped using that app on the first place. we're staying relatively close to pico and beverwil, which... has no intrinsic meaning to me