Gotta love how they decry DEI yet love parading around people of color they can convince to shill their hate.

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.

The Venn diagram is starting to disagree more and more these days.

Above the age of consent and I don’t care what age two people are. There may be some details that change that somewhat, e.g., 24-year-old marrying an oblivious rich 90-year-old, etc., but that’s not even about age as much as intention.

Generally speaking, age gap stops mattering once both people are old enough to give valid and informed consent for the other person to do stuff to them.

Do you watch a lot of anime? Maybe you crossed some wires…

Three of your recommendations are Denis Villeneuve joints. Just sayin’. 👀

Honestly I think OP would do well with a lot of movies that were specifically filmed for IMAX, which means Villeneuve and Chris Nolan are going to be on that list. Not just released in IMAX, but filmed for it. A nice benefit there is that IMAX is a taller aspect ratio, so you don’t get 2.35:1 with letterboxing at top and bottom, but the entirety of your 16:9 screen gets used when it’s an IMAX transfer. For example, put on The Dark Knight and that opening bank robbery scene will pop out to the whole screen and feel like a revelation.

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.

“If you say ‘EMERGENCY!’ before you do it, the Constitution doesn’t count!”

Bizarre, but charming. I’ll have to look into it.

The 2011 movie was hilariously bad, but if you go in with that expectation and preferably an altered mental state of your choice, it’s actually really fun. It’s begging to be turned into a drinking game or five.

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.

The 2011 Paul W. S. Anderson adaptation (in 3D!), on the other hand, goes so far off the rails so fast that you see a Musketeer-ninja rock a rapid-fire crossbow and pre-Cousteau SCUBA gear I think before you even get to the title card. It’s a stupid, stupid movie and the absolute best kind of terrible, in my opinion.

Though I will say, as I left the theater dizzied by the honest to god airship cannon battle at the end of the film, I looked up the absurd plot and character names only to find that it was significantly more true to the book in overall story arc (ignoring the, ah, embellishments) than many other adaptations have been. Huh.

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.

Well no, it’s something more akin to a co-op, because profit isn’t built in.

“At cost” could be a compound value inclusive of overhead and labor.