Not unless you wanna punch a nail in with your fist.
"AI" only does things we can do, because to do otherwise would be evidence against the general, human level intelligence that the marketing behind these abominations are so desperate for. The catch is they do it quicker, sometimes much quicker, but always much worse.
If a tool like this is currently only suitable for specific and minor cases under human oversight, how does it prove any better than a human? Wouldn't one of the only novel and useful cases of "AI" be general intelligence that is able to parse events in real time, instead of from manually selected information that we are so quickly running out of? We are so far from that and being sold Siri / Cortana for the third time.
I admit I'm definitely biased in this - even if information presented by one of these "AI" was factual, I would still take it upon myself to check. I don't trust their works at all.
It is so irresponsible to call this a "glitch". This isn't something going wrong at any point, this is just technology that is not sufficient for what it is being asked to do, and only because we know the real truth and are able to fact check does that register.
Claiming it is a glitch gives the opportunity for AI companies to hide behind the excuse of "mistakes in the code", instead of recognizing the fundamental flaw of the technology in question.
At the same time, this article attempts to politicize a wider issue by relating the failings of AI to current events. In fact, this hallucination and failure is near constant, but it is no coincedence. It is the product of both technology being used before readiness, and the (hilarious) attempt by Elon to use AI as a propaganda machine to spread and legitimize his beliefs.
Would be good to have a little dot next to a room if it has an unread message. Or a signpost telling you at which point unread messages begin. Basically just track read / unread messages.
But why must the deception take place? Evolution is natural, The development of AI generated videos takes teams of people, years of effort and millions of pounds. Why should those that are more easily deceived be culled? Do you believe that the future of technology is weeding out the weak? Do you believe the future of humanity is the existence of only those that can use the technologies we develop? You might very well find yourself in a position, a long time from now, where you are easily deceived by newer technologies that you are not familiar with.
That's exactly what I mean, all of those methods take some human effort, there is a human involved in the process. Now we face a reality that it might take no human effort to do... well, anything. Which is terrifying to me.
I do believe that humans are restless, and even when there is no longer any point to create, and it is far easier to dictate, we still will, just because we are too driven not to.
I hope they're right. If the technology improves to such a degree that meaningful content can be produced then it could spell global disaster for a number of reasons.
Also I just don't want to live in a world where the things we watch just aren't real. I want to be able to trust what I see, and see the human-ness in it. I'm aware that these things can co-exist, but I'm also becoming increasingly aware that as long as this technology is available and in development, it will be used for deception.
Hmm... alright, thank you. I'll stick with what I've got for now. You're right though, it seems like Mozilla is looking for a way to monetise their platform, at the expense of user experience.
Oh damn that sucks, still nothing affecting user experience... yet. Reminds me of a nightly build I saw where they tested forcibly putting fakespot products on the frontpage. [https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/2024/11/19/experimental-add...]. I think they knew this was gonna be controversial, you'd think the blog title would mention something like this but they choose to focus on smaller bug fixes and tuck the literal forced advertising near the bottom. For now I'll stick around, but if this stuff ever gets released / impacts the way the browser functions I'll have to find something else.
Sorry, could you be a bit more specific? As a user, not a developer, I'm curious if there's any flaws in the source code (potential security vulnerabilities, inefficient code that might cause slow / slower execution, dodgy third party data extraction, stuff like that.) that might affect day-to-day user experience. Personally, when I switched from Chrome to Firefox, I found I had much more control over each aspect of the browser experience and that's been the main reason I've stayed. I especially like the "about:config" page, chrome is sorely missing something similar.
Well, the Matrix movie showed a perfect depiction of the world stuck in 1999, with people given freedom to do as they wish (or what they thought was freedom). So... I guess more than just driving on barren plains haha.
Just curious, what is wrong with the Firefox source code specifically? I've used it for a couple years and haven't noticed anything awful, but if there's something I'm not aware of and it's as bad as you say I'll swap in a heartbeat.
My dad has an app that can identify tree species from a photo of the leaf. I can't remember what it was called but it was definitely better than any social media haha.
When you think of "The Matrix" - An infinitely generated and extremely complex world, I don't think most people would picture this, and especially not in a car like that. The car choice makes sense when you consider there aren't any roads at all! Of course, it is a very new technology, but then that does bring into question the paper author's frankly ambitious title choice.
Interestingly, this website does remind me of something I played a while back - check it out! [https://slowroads.io/]. It has roads!
My favourite painting of all time "The Escorial from a foot-hill of the Guadarrama mountains" by Lucas van Uden [https://data.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/id/image/media-4256550851] is quite a small painting that I'm sure most people have never heard of, hell, I'd never heard of it before I found it tucked politely in a corner of the Cambridge Fitzwilliam Museum, and I sure as hell don't know who Lucas van Uden is. Nevertheless, it is a remarkably beautiful painting and demonstrates true craft from the artist. I have no idea what a painting like this would cost, but I can't say it would be worth much compared to some of the other pieces in there. Your comment leads me to wonder what the incredibly wealthy would have to say about this painting's quality. It certainly feels worthy to me.
I definitely agree with you - it reminds me of an inverted bell curve, or the YouTube series "The Search For The Worst" - It is far better from a viewer's perspective to wholeheartedly and absolutely fail, then create something so mediocre and lacking in soul that it isn't worth a thought. I suppose the primary purpose of an art gallery, at least this one, is to entertain, and MOMA (Mueseum Of Mediocre Art in this case) was already taken [https://www.moma.org/]
I'm reminded also of the corporate art style [https://thebroadsideonline.com/17614/opinion/opinion-the-cor...] - every effort was taken to produce something so inoffensive and average that it could not possibly provoke any emotion in any demographic. Nobody would ever say that this is their favourite art style.
What's your favourite piece within the collections on the MOBA website?
First time I ran it, just off the basic link, it eventually finished with a time of 36:42 (ran at 15:16)
Then I tried turning up the speed and it seemed to make numbers at first but erased its own progress with blank blocks, ending in gibberish.
Maybe another 100 prompts? haha.