it’s just a convenience, not a magic wand. Sure relying on AI blindly and exclusively is a horrible idea (that lots of people peddle and quite a few suckers buy), but there’s room for a supervised and careful use of AI, same as we started using google instead of manpages and (grudgingly, for the older of us) tolerated the addition of syntax highlighting and even some code completion to all but the most basic text editors.
“Spectacular custom built oceanback, home, impressive land views & only a 5 minutes swim to the beach!”
We found very ancient human viruses! To the lab! Gotta see if we can use them to infect modern humans…
I know that research is generally for good, but why is it so hard to tell if a quote is from an actual researcher or a comics super-villain?
ah man, just when I thought I had a good grasp of English… The examples of how you’d phrase the second meaning are very helpful, thanks!
thank you!!
sorry for the question, I’m not a native english speaker… do you mean this as in “this is the Googlest thing ever” or “I have never read so many Google news in a week”?
we are doing this, now?
Nah, micro is the superior option! 😜
Is it still “disputed” if absolutely nobody else thinks it’s Chinese? if I claim the Grand Canyon is mine, does it make it the Disputed Canyon?
“see this chart here? We lose money for every subscriber! We’ll never make any money until we get rid of all of theml”
printing all that paper in order to sue them probably ended up costing more than their fine
he doesn’t even make TEN billions a year? Ha, what a loser!
Just wanted to point out that the Pinterest examples are conflating two distinct issues: low-quality results polluting our searches (in that they are visibly AI-generated) and images that are not “true” but very convincing,
The first one (search results quality) should theoretically be Google’s main job, except that they’ve never been great at it with images. Better quality results should get closer to the top as the algorithm and some manual editing do their job; crappy images (including bad AI ones) should move towards the bottom.
The latter issue (“reality” of the result) is the one I find more concerning. As AI-generated results get better and harder to tell from reality, how would we know that the search results for anything isn’t a convincing spoof just coughed up by an AI? But I’m not sure this is a search-engine or even an Internet-specific issue. The internet is clearly more efficient in spreading information quickly, but any video seen on TV or image quoted in a scientific article has to be viewed much more skeptically now.
I do. Right now I’m listening to music on my phone through wired headphones. I have too many smart things already connected via bluetooth to my phone: 2 different wireless speakers, an electronic drumset, smart TV, car, fitness tracker (I’m sure I’m forgetting something) and I came to like the idea of physically plugging something in order for sound to be played through it, especially if both phone and external device are physically close to me during the whole interaction, like with a headset.
Have seen that too. The canned press release from all of them is something like “as part of our continued effort to make the org more efficient we have aggregated tram X with team Y and as a result a handful of roles were no longer needed. Our company remains focused and confident in our growth”. Has AI taken over the PR department too?
From what I can see, this is not even about individual performance. It looks like a continuous game of musical chair where an entire team here and there is suddenly decimated or completely removed with non-existent internal communication.
Ah thanks for the context, I didn’t know! But doesn’t my point essentially stills stand?
As more people work from home and more Flatiron-like buildings struggle to find businesses looking for offices, developers might find “ex prestigious office to luxury apartments” a more appealing conversion than “ex Walmart to affordable housing”.
Also, my understanding of the housing crisis is that people can’t find an affordable place to live close enough to where they work. In my country there are plenty of small towns that used to be very pretty places to live, that have very affordable housing and that are turning into ghost towns because all the jobs are concentrated in a few big cities.
If you take away the offices, less people are going to need to live in New York, San Francisco or London. Plenty of people might still choose to, of course, but there should be less competition to rent the last bed space in a filthy apartment at ludicrous prices. Or to buy a small flat in a converted former office.
I like how this is finally acknowledging WFH as something that is here to stay but I’m not sure I understand the connection with the housing crisis. From the article:
New York’s famous Flatiron Building will soon be converted from empty offices into luxury residences
Luxury apartments in premium locations is the first thing I would think of too if I were a developer, but their target buyers don’t sound like the sort of people who currently suffer from the housing crisis. But maybe I’m wrong and there will also be developers converting less prestigious office space into affordable housing…
The other thing I don’t get is this: I don’t know Manhattan but I did work in some (I assume) similar business hubs in the middle of overpriced cities and I wonder: are many people going to want to live in expensive converted office spaces if they don’t work near there any longer? I mean if they were given the chance to WFH from anywhere would they still choose Manhattan? Honest question and maybe the answer is yes, because of the restaurants, culture, good schools or whatever… I would personally make different life choices if I could work completely remote, though.
But it is exactly because they’re cheap, widely available and work well. Before AirTags, I’m not sure where you could acquire the technology you mention, but probably through some specialized channel requiring at least some tech knowledge. Also purchasing from that channel would presumably look at least a tiny bit suspect, because you were purchasing spying equipment, not something that is marketed as a way not to lose your luggage
And I get it, I have never tried AirTags but they do sound great for not losing your luggage. It’s just that the illicit way to use them is so evident that it’s like those “face massage” vibrators
it’s not just phones or devices that need updates, though. None of my refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers have ever lasted more than 10 years; I think the average is about 5 years before they stop working, get all rusty or a very expensive piece breaks so they are not worth repairing. Meanwhile all of my granma’s old kitchen appliances are still working perfectly after 60+ years of service.
Sure, it might be just that over-optimizing their production so they are more performant while being cheaper to make is also making them less durable, but I don’t see a lot of motivation from companies to go out of their way to build durable things either. And it’s not that I think Corporate = Bad; as you say it’s a cost/benefit thing, it’s just that the “benefit” companies try to maximize is their shareholders’, not our planet’s. It’s on Politics to create a legal framework where some of the cost to our planet is shared with companies (so they have incentives to make things durable/repairable again) and on us consumer to choose wisely what to buy, when and from whom.
Yes, South Korea wouldn:t want to ruin their friendship with their neighbors in the North. You know the ones always sending them gifts