We know perfectly well that the art is behind glass and will not be damaged because they did it before. So it’s complete nonsense to say that it will potentially destroy the art.
We know perfectly well that the art is behind glass and will not be damaged because they did it before. So it’s complete nonsense to say that it will potentially destroy the art.
Losing 2,000 litres of helium is possibly the worst part of this.
That is the error that the model made. Your quote talks about the causes of these errors. I asked what caused the model to make this error.
Sure, but which of these factors do you think were relevant to the case in the article? The AI seems to have had a large corpus of documents relating to the reporter. Those articles presumably stated clearly that he was the reporter and not the defendant. We are left with “incorrect assumptions made by the model”. What kind of assumption would that be?
In fact, all of the results are hallucinations. It’s just that some of them happen to be good answers and others are not. Instead of labelling the bad answers as hallucinations, we should be labelling the good ones as confirmation bias.
Well, the children don’t have a choice, so I assume you’re talking about the choice to target the militants there and not in another place.
Yes, specifically militants who are fathers.
Hamas uses phones, hence the “Where’s Daddy?” attack, which is not directed at tunnels. It’s more-or-less designed to hit civilians. The clue is in the name.
Well, there you are again. You said “my questioning of what you claimed”. That isn’t self reflection. If you aren’t asking in bad faith, you need to spend more time on your wording.
The downvotes are because it seemed that you were asking in bad faith. You said “I believe it is true”, but now you say (admit) that you were questioning it.
The email says that you can do it. It doesn’t say that you can do it without purchasing the upsell option.
The author mentions that some of the changes broke things, but it’s a long way into the article before the word “test” appears. It’s only point 6/7 of his recommendations.
Making changes with no test coverage is not refactoring. It’s just rewriting. Start there.
I don’t think China wants that.
He has those weird psychological tricks, like standing funny, having a long tie, and the handshake thing. Getting people to say “hello, how are you” to him is probably one of those, and he’s upset that she sidestepped it.
We need to be transitioning to zero carbon as fast as possible, period, and even that isn’t good enough. Moderating our energy consumption is vital. There is a cliff at the end of the road and business as usual means driving on down the road.
I am not saying that we need to turn off our lights and heating. I am saying that we first-worlders use a lot of power on frivolous things that we absolutely can live without.
The Megane E-tech has functionality in its satnav that lets you plot a route with charging stations on the way, showing how much capacity you will have left when you get to them. Not essential, but very useful for somebody who is new to EVs.
Software that communicates with power companies to allow the car to charge overnight at advantageous rates, or even feed energy back into the grid. Again, not essential, but good for the customer and helps with the transition to green electricity.
If you make a painting now, it wouldn’t be based on those thousands and thousands of paintings since, although you have seen them, you apparently do not remember them. But, if you did, and you made a painting based on one, and did not acknowledge it, you would indeed be a bad artist.
The bad part about using the art of the past is not copying. The problem is plagiarism.
Inspiration is absolutely a thing. When Constable and Cezanne sat at their easels, a large part of their inspiration was Nature. When Picasso invented Cubism, he was reacting to tradition, not following it. There are also artists like Alfred Wallis, who are very unconnected to tradition.
I think your final sentence is actually trying to say that we have advances in tools, not inspiration, since the Lascaux caves are easily on a par with the Sistine Chapel if you allow for the technology? And that AI is simply a new tool? That may be, but does the artist using this new tool control which images it was trained on? Do they even know? Can they even know?
Maybe the AIs should mix their own pigments as well, instead of taking all the other artists’ work and grinding that up.
The 5 bullet points do not sound like slang terms to me.