“First evidence in a billion years of two lifeforms merging into one”

It’s slightly shorter and more accurate… it does not state absolutely that it happened for the first time, but rather that it’s the first evidence we’ve found from the last billion years.

The word “Nazi” wasn’t part of the prompt though.

The prompt was “1943 German Soldier”… so if, like you said, the images are “Dressed as a German style soldier”, I’d say it’s not too bad.

While the result from generating an image through AI is not meant to be “factually” accurate, its seeking to be as accurate as possible when it comes to matching the prompt that is provided. And the prompt “1943 German Soldier” or “US Senator from the 1800” or “Emperor of China” has some implications in what kind of images would be expected and which kinds wouldn’t. Just like how you wouldn’t expect a lightsaber when asking for “medieval swords”.

I’m not convinced that attempting to “balance a biased training dataset” in the way that this is apparently being done is really attainable or worthwhile.

An AI can only work based on biases, and it’s impossible to correct/balance the dataset without just introducing a different bias. Because the model is just a collection of biases that discriminate between how different descriptions relate to pictures. If there was no bias for the AI to rely on, they would not be able to pick anything to show.

For example, the AI does not know whether the word “Soldier” really corresponds to someone dressed like in the picture, it’s just biased to expect that. It can’t tell whether an actual soldier might just be wearing pajamas or whether someone dressed in those uniforms might not be an actual soldier.

Describing a picture is, on itself, an exercise of assumptions, biases, appearances that are just based on pre-conceived notions of what are our expectations when comparing the picture to our own reality. So the AI needs to show whatever corresponds to those biases in order to match as accuratelly as possible our biased expectations for what those descriptions mean.

If the dataset is complete enough, and yet it’s biased to show predominantly a particular gender or ethnicity when asking for “1943 German Soldier” because that happens to be the most common image of what a “1943 German Soldier” is, but you want a different ethnicity or gender, then add that ethnicity/gender to the prompt (like you said in the first point), instead supporting the idea of having the developers force diversity into the results in a direction that contradicts the dataset just because the results aren’t politically correct. …it would be more honest to add a disclaimer and still show the result as it is, instead of manipulating it in a direction that activelly pushes the IA to hallucinate.

Alternativelly: expand your dataset with more valuable data in a direction that does not contradict reality (eg. introduce more pictures of soldiers of different ethnics from situations that actually are found in our reality). You’ll be altering the data, but you would be doing it without distorting the bias unrealistically, since they would be examples grounded in reality.

And nuclear was purposefully “phased out”.

Were the earlier series not focused on shared values to more or less a similar extent too?
Kirk has usually been given the reputation of being a rule-breaker, often ignoring Starfleet rules when they are in conflict with his values. Even off-camera (in DS9 I think) they attribute him 17 temporal violations, and I think he has been accused of violating the prime directive multiple times.

+1, either cull them from the union or cull them from the free trade deals.
What makes no sense is to let them decide to not enforce the EU rules while at the same time treating them as if they are a valid compliant member when it comes to trading with other countries in the union.

Even if they did hallucinate answers, it wouldn’t be the first game that relies on the “unreliable narrator” trope.

The problem is that people apparently like the abuse.
Why is so many people simping for Adobe products? And even promoting them in the education levels…
Even if the competition were technologically inferior (which I don’t know if it’s really true) I’d rather the industry sacrificed throwing away 10+ years of adobe-driven improvements if we could get rid of the shackles.

I wish this was a start towards a push for ActivityPub support across blogging platforms and feed readers.

In particular, it would be interesting if some form of support for statically-generated ActivityPub feeds was a thing among the software acting as consumers. That’s the one thing that still makes RSS/Atom be better of an option for many blogs that are built statically.

Even if they were the ones paying me $1 a year for having an account, I doubt I’d be using it.

Personally, while I appreciate when people add a “snippet of explanation”, I do prefer that to be in the comments. Not as the main text of the submission.

Making it part of the submission can feel like editorializing. If I want to read the artice, I read the article, if I want to read opinions / interpretations of the article, I read the comments.

Using the “text snippet” for opinions or interpretations can cause bias… and it also might encourage people to repost the same content multiple times just so they can post with a different bias.

I think the comment section is a more organized and suitable place for that. It also allows people to use their votes to decide whether the opinion/explanation deserves the upvote, separatelly from whether the link itself deserves promotion.

I think it’s also safe to presume that in the ultra future tech advanced society of Star Trek, they can remove the bacteria that causes body odor in humans.

A lot of odor-causing bacteria are actually beneficial for us though. And what causes Vulcans to experience that “odor” might not be coming from bacteria to begin with… for all we know it might be one of the thousand of compounds that leak into the air we exhale directly from our lungs.

Virtually every gas or volatile liquid is susceptible to cause odor. The only reason we interpret pure water as odorless/tasteless is because water is everywhere so our senses evolved in a way that it doesn’t trigger a response. There are many other compounds we don’t really perceive because we are used to them at the concentrations that exist in our breath.

If let’s say an alien species is not used to having 78% Nitrogen in their atmosphere, and they happen to have receptors sensible enough, then being in a ship with breathable air similar to Earth might just make them puke in disgust after having a sniff of what we might consider “clean air”.

I’d argue it’d make more sense for everyone to wear the equivalent of a high tech mask (supressants?) rather than having to re-engineer the biology of the species every time they encounter an alien that might have a different set of compounds they might find unpleasant.

deleted by creator

Note that in Spain “coger” also means “to grab or hold” just like in Colombia. So most dictionaries are likely to use that.

But you are completely right.
I mean, “una polla” in Spain would be “a penis”… but everywhere else it means either “a female chicken” or, in some places, “a girlfriend”. In others it means “a bet”, and I think in Mexico it’s the name of an egg-based drink.

I know a lot of people define it as a necessity, but I feel that it’s a life choice too.
I’d rather sacrifice a lot of other things (eg. rejecting one job vs another) if it makes it so I don’t need a car.

I would love to have the privilege of living in a nice and relatively big family house in the suburbs, but I’d rather live in a small cramped apartment farther away from some of my siblings if that means having better transport options without needing to purchase and maintain a car.

I wonder, if everyone had similar preferences, whether the world would adapt to actually make public transport (or alternatively, home office / delivery) as widespread of a commodity as having roads for private vehicles.

I mean, it would technically be possible to build a computer out or organic and biological live tissue. It wouldn’t be very practical but it’s technically possible.

I just don’t think it would be very reasonable to consider that the one thing making it intelligent is that they are made of proteins and living cells instead of silicates and diodes. I’d argue that such a claim would, on itself, be a strong claim too.

Note that “real world truth” is something you can never accurately map with just your senses.

No model of the “real world” is accurate, and not everyone maps the “real world truth” they personally experience through their senses in the same way… or even necessarily in a way that’s really truly “correct”, since the senses are often deceiving.

A person who is blind experiences the “real world truth” by mapping it to a different set of models than someone who has additional visual information to mix into that model.

However, that doesn’t mean that the blind person can “never understand” the “real world truth” …it just means that the extent at which they experience that truth is different, since they need to rely in other senses to form their model.

Of course, the more different the senses and experiences between two intelligent beings, the harder it will be for them to communicate with each other in a way they can truly empathize. At the end of the day, when we say we “understand” someone, what we mean is that we have found enough evidence to hold the belief that some aspects of our models are similar enough. It doesn’t really mean that what we modeled is truly accurate, nor that if we didn’t understand them then our model (or theirs) is somehow invalid. Sometimes people are both technically referring to the same “real world truth”, they simply don’t understand each other and focus on different aspects/perceptions of it.

Someone (or something) not understanding an idea you hold doesn’t mean that they (or you) aren’t intelligent. It just means you both perceive/model reality in different ways.

Step 1. Analize what’s the possible consequence / event that you find undesirable

Step 2. Determine whether there’s something you can do to prevent it: if there is, go to step 3, if there’s not go to step 4

Step 3. Do it, do that thing that you believe can prevent it. And after you’ve done it, go back to step 2 and reevaluate if there’s something else.

Step 4. Since there’s nothing else you can do to prevent it, accept the fact that this consequence might happen and adapt to it… you already did all you could do given the circumstances and your current state/ability, you can’t do anything about it anymore, so why worry? just accept it. Try and make it less “undesirable”.

Step 5. Wait. Entertain yourself some other way… you did your part.

Step 6. Either the event doesn’t happen, or it happens but you already prepared to accept the consequences.

Step 7. Analyze what (not) happened and how it happened (or didn’t). Try to understand it better so in the future you can better predict / adapt under similar circumstances, and go back to step 1.

In general terms, I believe each website can limit the scope of the content they host in any way they choose. The same way as how /m/asia can limit itself to Asian content and delete content related to other countries/ethnicities, or how an Islamic streaming service can decide that it will only allow content that respects the Islam, and remove any Christian content (and in the same way, a website might declare itself Christian and remove Islamic content).

Though in the particular case of Youtube I’m not saying that’s a bad point, but only because of how big of a platform Youtube is. So in a way they could be considered a monopoly, and in that case there might be a reason to think that they should not target any demografic in their content. But I’m not a lawyer and I’m not sure if that’s enough of a legal basis to demand that. I would expect it’s not, though. Specially if we are talking US law which is under which this lawsuit was filled.

Sure but that’s a different topic. We are talking about the content they host, it’s the content what they can take down for any reason. Of course they can’t ban an individual based on one of the conditions that are protected by human rights, but they can ban them based on what kind of content that person posts. He wasn’t banned because of being an antivaxer (even if that isn’t protected), but because of the antivax content he posted. Even an antivaxer can post content in Youtube, as long as it’s content Youtube is ok with (eg. not antivax). I’m sure there’s a lot of people with controversial ideas that happen to post content within the limits of what Youtube tolerates.

Youtube often takes down content that shows too much of women boobs, but they are ok with showing men boobs, for example.

You can’t refuse selling a calendar to a woman (for the reason of her being a woman), but you can refuse to sell calendars that have pictures of women on them if you decided that’s not what you wanna sell (and you don’t even need to justify it). For example.