I don’t know how to write code myself, but intuitively it seems a little different in this case.

When it comes to photography, I can show the original unedited RAW file with full resolution and full metadata and everyone else just has a lower-resolution JPG. The same thing applies to most digital art.

I wish this story reflected accurately on me as a person, but it’s just a one-off event that had every chance to go off the rails but didn’t.

If by “good” you mean one that more reliably answers your questions correctly, then no. That’s not really what these systems are good at. They’re fully capable of giving a solid, accurate answer, but you can simply never trust it to be correct. They’re great for chit-chat and bouncing around ideas if you’re into that, but it’s not an oracle.

When it comes to translating languages, that’s one of the few things LLMs are actually somewhat decent at, and I don’t think there’s much difference between them in that regard.

It’s not generally difficult at all for an artist to prove that they are the original creator of a certain piece. My photography for example is available for anyone for free and in high resolution but I’m the only one with the full resolution pictures and RAW files. So much data is lost when a picture is compressed into .jpg format.

Imagine hating gays so much you want to fuck them.

Here’s the full quote including the parts you conveniently left out.

Even fully autonomous weapons (those that take humans out of the loop entirely and automate selecting and engaging targets) may prove critical for our national defense. But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons. We will not knowingly provide a product that puts America’s warfighters and civilians at risk. We have offered to work directly with the Department of War on R&D to improve the reliability of these systems, but they have not accepted this offer.

Our strong preference is to continue to serve the Department and our warfighters—with our two requested safeguards in place.

Source

My understanding is that it’s not military use broadly that they object to but the use of their systems for the development of fully autonomous drones.

Likely American made AA missile too.

With a miter/circular saw. I’m physically unable to cut straight with handtools. Even if I use a square to make guide lines around the entire piece.

You’re free to make up your own mind. No need to go with whatever group you identify with tells you you’re supposed to do or think.

What the US has often done in the past is provide air support for aligned local rebels on the ground. In this case, though, that rebel force doesn’t really exist, so I figure the reasoning is to show the people of Iran that if you want to take back your country, now’s the time - and we’ll help you. There’s at least some evidence that a big chunk of the Iranian population is fed up with the Islamist government but whether this’ll lead to an uprising or regime change remains to be seen.

It’s a state that’s always been hostile toward the US and its interests - both directly and by funding groups that share the same goals as Iran does. Over the past few years, though, the war in Ukraine, Israel’s strike on Iran, the US follow-up bombing of their nuclear sites, and the special Maduro operation have all shown that Russian air-defense systems aren’t much of a threat to Western fighter jets anymore. So they probably figured that if they’re going to do this, now’s the time - while Iran’s at its weakest - instead of waiting around. Countries like North Korea have dodged the same fate by holding Seoul hostage, but Iran doesn’t have that kind of leverage.

I’m sure the title here is accurate summary of the conclusion of the study and I don’t need to even check because as a person who doesn’t conscume short-form media this confirms something I already know to be true about myself.

Oh yeah, good point - I don’t know how I missed that. I was focusing on the cracks on the wall and the placement of pebbles on the ground. Yeah that’s not just overexposure from sunshine making it seem different color.

That comparison looks like it’s just picture of the same subject taken with two different cameras from sligthly different angle. I’m somewhat experienced in photography, picture editing and playing with GenAI and nothing immediately stands out as being fake/manipulated. Doesn’t mean it’s can’t be ofcourse. That one few comments down with blood on the ground is fake though.

When it goes against one’s personal preferences and agenda.

over 80 girls killed at school never gets front page.

I barely even follow the news but have seen reports of this all over.

Seemin unability to truly live in the current moment. Always have to be thinking about the past or worrying about the future. With a decade of experience in meditation I’ve seen glimpses of what it could be like when you just are and everything is okay. It’s all just so fleeting.

Who said it needs to add value? The article claims that showing AI-generated content to others without them explicitly asking for it is inherently bad - even when you tell them it’s AI. So basically: if you share it without mentioning the source you’re deceiving people, and if you do mention it it’s still bad… because reasons.

To me that just sounds like an ideological stance more than a logical one.

You dismiss the whole person just because they acknowledge using an LLM? That seems a bit harsh - especially since they had the decency to mention the source, which is basically the same as saying “take this with a grain of salt.”