Preferences

kouru225
Joined 649 karma

  1. One thing I genuinely hate about modern tech is that it punishes you for planning ahead. I purposely spent time getting a password manager and implementing 2fa protocols that would both speed up my time and keep me safe. Then suddenly every company decided it was time to go passwordless or do passkeys and all my work (researching different products, setting each one up, making sure hey work on all my devices, etc etc) suddenly goes down the drain
  2. Actors have known this for decades: self-expression isn’t only a stage problem. It’s a life problem. Most people fail to express themselves on an hourly basis. Being good at expressing yourself is unnatural. Having clarity of what “yourself” even is is unnatural. The truth is that we’re all making comments, jokes, deciding what’s important and what not using old programming in our brains… programming that was given to us by our childhood and our education. Very few people can consistently have the luxury of being/ability to be creative with that old programming, and even those that can often have to plan ahead of time/rigidly control the environment in order to achieve a creative result.

    The exact same problem exists with writing. In fact, this problem seems to exist across all fields: science, for example, is filled with people who have never done a groundbreaking study, presented a new idea, or solved an unsolved problem. These people and their jobs are so common that the education system orients itself to teach to them rather than anyone else. In the same way, an education in literature focused on the more likely traits you’ll need to get a job: hitting deadlines, following the expected story structure, etc etc.

    Having confined ourselves to a tiny little box, can we really be surprised that we’re so easy to imitate?

  3. The first iterations of the apple keyboard were perfect. They literally did everything perfectly without any notes.

    Then it seems like they’re started teaching to the bottoms of the class and added a bunch of terrible decisions: Substituting touch to select instead of touch to move cursor was a genuinely awful decision that now makes typing a constant chore, and it seems like their autocorrect is overcompensating so hard that it prevents me from writing perfectly good words simply because they’re not common ones.

    Side note: anyone else have moments where you can’t press delete once predictive text has shown up?

  4. Here’s the link to his documentary series of the same name: https://archive.org/details/WaysofSeeing
  5. Ngl I feel like most people only accept these criticisms of AI because they’re against AI to begin with. If you look at the claims, they fall apart pretty quickly. The environment issue is negligible and has less to do with AI than just computing in general, the consolidation of resources assumes that larger more expensive AI models will outcompete smaller local models and that’s not necessarily happening, the spread of misinformation doesn’t seem to have accelerated at all since AI came about (probably because we were already at peak misinformation and AI can’t add much more), the decay in critical thinking is far overblown if not outright manipulated data.

    About the only problem here is the increase of surveillance and you can avoid that by running your own models, which are getting better and better by the day. The fact that people are so willing to accept these criticisms without much scrutiny is really just indicative of prior bias

  6. Karpathy recently did an interview where he says that the future of AI is 1b models and I honestly believe him. The small models are getting better and better, and it’s going to end up decentralizing power moreso than anything else
  7. How did this article get so many upvotes? Even among articles that pine for the good old days, this article is trash. Like 80% of it is just saying “remember that movie? And the things we thought were meaningful back then?”

    The idea that modern movies don’t take risks is absurd. Have you seen Poor Things? Have you seen Zone of Interest? Mickey17? OBAA? There are more movies taking more risks in this era of film than there has ever been before. You’re just not watching them.

    The real story here is the way lighting has changed and how it makes you feel when you watch the movie.

  8. Why would that be likely
  9. I wonder if you’d get a higher percent of overlap if you only focused on Friday/Saturday bookings
  10. Very clearly shows much more sensitive our eyes are to luminance rather than hue or saturation, which was the main observation that allowed for the high compression rate of JPEG
  11. Wait so is it possible to pass a message using AI and does this matter?

    Like let’s imagine I have an AI model and only me and my friend have it. I write a prompt and get back the vectors only. No actual output. Then I send my friend those vectors and they use this algorithm to reconstruct my message at the endpoint. Does this method of messaging protect against a MITM attack? Can this be used in cryptography?

  12. Thomas Kuhn would say that the exact same thing happens in science literature.
  13. I haven’t read the book, but I’m almost always suspicious of criticism targeted at books like this. Let’s say I write a textbook about biology and I write the sentence:

    “The Mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell”

    Technically what I’m saying is wrong. What the mitochondria does is so vast and confusing that no sentence like that can ever encompass its role. In fact, even using the word “role” is questionable because it presumes that the mitochondria’s sole function is to work as a team with other organelles/biological structures when in fact biology doesn’t really care about some abstract idea like “team.” All language is derived from analogy, and all analogies are insufficient to describe reality. In fact, mathematicians now agree that even math is an insufficient language. It can’t fully describe the territory. It can only make maps of it, and all maps are only useful because they are compressed and packaged versions of the territory. The question is just, “how much compression is useful?”

    We live in a world where science communication is so atrophied that the flat earth, and creationist theories are still in circulation. Scientists have dramatically failed to market their ideas to the masses, despite the fact that these ideas are inherently compelling. To me, the reason why they’ve failed seems obvious: because they’re so busy tearing down science communicators that none of them can ever get a real hold on the public. And why? Because the books they write are at compression level that the scientists arbitrarily deem irresponsible.

    This guy wrote a compelling story about the barrier between mind/body. To do that, he must have distributed a viral package of psychological terminology and concepts. It was then distributed to and consumed by millions of people. In all likelihood, the fact that they were excited by this book probably led them to read other books like it. They probably encountered conflicting ideas, questioned them, and looked them up. They probably have a much rounder understanding of these ideas now than they did when they first read them.

    Now this other guy writes a story and all it says is “yo that dude was wrong.” How helpful! How useful! And let’s be 100% clear: the person writing this isn’t communicating the absolute truth. They’re also compressing their ideas. In 100 years, I bet you any psychologist that reads both books will shake their head and point out all the flaws in their analogies. Meanwhile, the cycle continues: the scientists tear each other down and the masses continue sacrificing innocent children to appease the blood god.

  14. I’m almost certain that if we were to do a test, less than 10% of 60+ year olds would be able to identify a messed up aspect ratio.
  15. What I’m most surprised by is how visually illiterate the older generations seem to be.

    As a video editor, I’ve encountered multiple moments where an older person is incapable of even noticing that we’ve cut from one angle to another, and the amount of times I’ve had to convince them that “yes the audience will absolutely notice that incredibly obvious mistake and we need to fix it” is astronomical.

    I’ve seen video after video of old people seemingly incapable of identifying even the most basic CGI or AI videos. And all you techies know how clearly this issue extends into the basic usage of a computer interface. How many times do I need to remind my dad how to turn on the subtitles?

    We can sit here and lambast the younger generations all we want, but I refuse to do it without accurately comparing them to the previous generations, which IMO were clearly less capable than we previously thought.

  16. I was almost willing to accept that Rene Girard had some academic value until I read more about him. It's hilarious to me that he writes an entire book arguing that scapegoating people is wrong and Christianity has single-handedly prevented scapegoating by relating to Jesus Christ, but then says political correctness is the Antichrist. If Christianity prevented scapegoating by telling the story of Jesus Christ, then shouldn't political correctness prevent scapegoating using the exact same tactics as Christianity? The whole point of political correctness is repenting the for the evils of the past. Isn't that exactly what you say works to prevent scapegoating Mr. Girard?
  17. I think this is actually an easy question to answer because you’ve accidentally preselected your demographics.

    Imagine this: among primates, there is an even distribution of species of differing levels of intelligence. All the primates who became intelligent have similar evolution paths because intelligence defines their evolution path (opposable thumbs, large heads, standing upright, etc.) Then because they all have similar evolution paths we put all those into the genus “Homo.” Each of species of the genus Homo eventually either breeds with each other or genocides one another until there are only the Homo Sapiens left.

    So with an even distribution of intelligence among all primates, it’s logical that, given enough time, all that is left are primates of sufficient intelligence enough to breed with each other or be genocided until there is only one species, or many species of primates who weren’t intelligent enough.

    This is my guess (I’m not a biologist or ancient historian or anything)

  18. You’d put private internet access in the really bad category?
  19. What kind of insane racist dog whistle is this?

    If you’re gonna come on here and make a crazy insinuation like that you better actually have some educational foundation. Do you know anything about the history of West Africa? Ever read a single book about it or watched a documentary?

  20. oooo I'm dumb lol. Yea I'm forcing dark mode

This user hasn’t submitted anything.